Taking a bath can be dangerous …

Nicholas Gruen posted on the weekend about a South Australian defamation matter called Manock v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd which has been going for almost 7 years and still hasn’t even reached trial. Nicholas quite rightly cited the case as a good example of the deplorable tendency of Australia’s legal system to foster/tolerate gross delaying tactics and utterly unnecessary complexity and expense resulting in systemic unfairness.

However, the context for the Manock case is itself fascinating and well worth a blog post in its own right. Dr Colin Manock is a veteran forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on a 29 year old Adelaide lawyer named Anna-Jane Cheney after her death in 1994. Ms Cheney had drowned in her bath at home. Dr Manock concluded that she had been murdered by someone using a technique effectively identical to the notorious UK Brides in the Bath murders in the early 1900s. One George Joseph Smith had killed three wives in succession by suddenly grabbing their ankles and pulling their heads under water while they were in the bath. Smith was convicted of all three murders in 1915 after some pioneering forensic work. Dr Manock found bruises on Ms Cheney’s ankles consistent with a grip mark. Ms Cheney’s fiance former bank manager Henry Keogh, who found her body, was subsequently charged with and convicted of her murder.

There is no doubt that Dr Manock’s testimony was a significant part of the circumstantial case against Keogh, although arguably at least as significant was the fact that shortly before her death Keogh had taken out 5 separate insurance policies on her life totalling some $1 million and had allegedly forged her signature on some insurance documents. There was also evidence that Keogh had romantic relationships with two other women at the time of Ms Cheney’s death, and statements he made subsequent to the death in relation to the insurance policies to members of the deceased’s family. Keogh certainly had both motive and opportunity at the very least.

Subsequent to Keogh’s conviction a small group of people led by ex-Adelaide University law lecturer Bob Moles formed the view that Keogh had been a victim of a miscarriage of justice and began campaigning for a retrial or at least an independent re-examination of the evidence. Their main arguments appear to revolve around alleged inadequacies in Dr Manock’s autopsy and his evidence at Keogh’s trial. Unfortunately for them (and Keogh) the High Court twice rejected these arguments as did a SA Medical Board enquiry which found:

There is no basis for criticising the opinion of Dr Manock as to the cause of death.

There are valid criticisms of the autopsy which even Dr Manock acknowledged was less than perfect. However for the reasons which we have expressed, we do not regard those criticisms as a cause for disciplinary action.

I became aware of the Keogh case some years ago after I had some dealings with Bob Moles as part of my CDU duties, and he took the opportunity to send me a copy of his book about it. Moles struck me as an intense, determined and possibly even obsessive-compulsive chap, an impression heightened by perusal of his voluminous website about the Keogh case.

After the endless publicity, petitions and court applications triggered by Moles and his group, you would have to wonder whether they are doing anyone including Keogh any favours by persisting in their endeavours. Still, no doubt some people said similar things about those who assisted Andrew Mallard prior to his eventual exoneration and release. That point was made by a recent ABC Background Briefing program about the Keogh case. Even so, my own tentative conclusion about the case after reading much of the material on Moles’ site is that there simply isn’t enough doubt surrounding Keogh’s conviction to justify re-opening the case.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that Dr Manock formed a strong conviction about Keogh’s guilt at a quite early stage, and perhaps as a result failed fully to investigate and eliminate other possible if highly unlikely explanations for Anna-Jane Cheney’s death. For example, one argument Moles and his colleagues have advanced is that Manock failed to disclose when giving evidence at trial that ordinary histology had not confirmed that one of the marks on Ms Cheney’s ankles was in fact a bruise, and that he utilised a test called polilight to confirm the diagnosis at least in respect of the thumb-print. They also argue that Manock failed to conduct an examination of Ms Cheney’s brain which, they allege, might have revealed some undiagnosed, unsuspected and completely asymptomatic medical condition such as epilepsy. That hypothetical illness in turn might have caused a sudden blackout, which could have provided an innocent explanation for how a seemingly completely healthy 29 year old woman could accidentally drown while having a bath!! They may well be correct about the shortcomings of Manock’s autopsy and evidence, but these arguments don’t strike me as providing a compelling case that a miscarriage of justice occurred. Nor did they so strike the High Court (twice), the Medical Board or the SA Attorney-General (three times with a fourth petition currently being considered).

Another factor worth keeping in mind is that the second medical expert called by the Prosecution at trial also supported Dr Manock’s conclusion about the bruising and its being consistent with a Brides in the Bath modus operandi, while both defence experts conceded that Manock’s conclusion was possible on the evidence, but suggested that the bruising might also be consistent with the deceased having bumped her leg or had a fall at some earlier time. 11. KP: However, the alleged thumb-print on the inside of Ms Cheney’s ankle was fairly clearly not consistent with a bump or fall, which is why the fact that Manock was only able to establish with a polilight test that it was in fact a bruise becomes so potentially significant. It appears that the central aspect of the current defamation proceedings between Manock and Channel 7 is the latter’s suggestion (no doubt at the urging of Keogh’s supporters), that the fact that the polilight testing was done and that it was the sole basis for Manock’s conclusion that this mark was a bruise, was deliberately suppressed by Dr Manock in his evidence at trial. It might be argued that the question of whether the mark on the inside of Ms Cheney’s ankle was a thumb-print bruise is critical to reaching a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt as to whether she was murdered in the way Dr Manock concluded. [↩]

Reporter: Keogh stood in the dock at Justice Duggan described the cold-blooded and long-planned execution of Anna Jane Cheney. The former bank manager was convicted by a jury of deliberately drowning Ms. Cheney in the bath in their Magill home.

Reporter: Keogh, now 41, will be in his mid 60s before he can apply for parole.

Hagar Cohen: Henry Keogh’s daughter, Alexis, was nine years old at the time.

Alexis Keogh: I remember reading things about my dad that I thought were about somebody else, they were just horrific. I was never ashamed of my dad, but because I just couldn’t deal with people’s opinions, I would often pretend that I wasn’t who I was.

Hagar Cohen: Alexis Keogh believes her father was convicted on the basis of false evidence.

Alexis Keogh: There are question marks. And that is the whole reason why the case has to be reviewed, because there shouldn’t be so many question marks. If a guilty verdict is brought down, it has to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there’s a lot of reasonable doubt. Now it’s just so hard to find out what actually did happen.

Hagar Cohen: For the past ten years a team of legal and other experts has been going through the evidence that led to Keogh’s conviction, and as we’ll hear, they are convinced it does not prove Henry Keogh killed Anna Jane Cheney.

The Keogh case is closed, so the South Australian Attorney-General must approve the re-opening of the case for new evidence to be heard. But the former Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, refused three petitions from Keogh’s lawyers asking for the evidence to be re-examined.

In 2003, after deciding on the third petition, Michael Atkinson spoke in parliament about the campaign to reopen the case. This is a reading from the parliamentary Hansard.

Atkinson Reading: Let me apologise to the Cheney family for the hurt that has been done to them. I met with Anna-Jane Cheney’s mother and brother the week before last. They have had to live with the campaign to release the murderer of Anna-Jane for nine years.

A few people – I repeat, just a few people – including a couple of lawyers and a former law professor, have questioned the competence of the prosecution and suggested that important pieces of evidence were withheld from the court. This is wrong. I deny it. Justice was done to Henry Keogh; let it be done also to the deceased, Anna-Jane, and to her family.

Hagar Cohen: A fourth petition has now been submitted to the current Attorney-General, John Rau. A spokesperson for Mr Rau said he will not comment on the case until the petition process is concluded. …

Hagar Cohen: Joe Crowley is a recent addition to a team of people who’ve been gathering new evidence for the past 10 years. One of them, Kevin Borick, says calls to reopen the case have so far failed to convince the Attorney-General.

Kevin Borick: That is the end of the matter. You can’t take it anywhere else, unless you can persuade a politician, the Attorney-General, the case should be referred back to the court. The former Attorney-General of South Australia, who’s been the Attorney-General for most of this, has made his position completely clear, that Henry Keogh was guilty of murder.

Hagar Cohen: So in light of this position, are you hopeful that anything’s going to come out of this?

Kevin Borick: It’s not a question of hope, there is no doubt that one day in the future, whether it’s going to be this year, next year or 20 years, the story of Henry Keogh will be told.

Hagar Cohen: Working closely with Kevin Borick, is Dr Bob Moles, a former law lecturer. And I spoke to him in his car on his way to visit Henry Keogh in prison.

Bob Moles: We’re on Grand Junction Road, which is the main circular road on the north of Adelaide, and we’re just a few minutes away from the Yatala labour prison. We’re going to see Henry Keogh this morning.

Hagar Cohen: Background Briefing was not allowed to speak to Keogh in prison, but Dr Bob Moles has been visiting him every two or three months for the past ten years.

Bob Moles: When I first came across his case, I was a Professor of Law at Adelaide University, and this was just one of the projects that my students had brought to my attention. When I first met with Henry, he said that if we didn’t get a move on, he will have been in prison for about six years, and that was when the Sydney Olympics were coming up, and he dreaded the thought of still being in prison at that time. He’s now been in prison for 16 years, and I have to say it’s all quite unnecessary.

Hagar Cohen: Why did you believe him?

Bob Moles: It wasn’t a question of believing him; the important thing is that I’m of the very firm opinion that no criminal event took place, and therefore it follows that he was not engaged in any criminal activity. I’ve been able to substantiate for myself, that this is a serious miscarriage of justice.

Hagar Cohen: On a Friday night in 1994, 29 year-old Anna Jane Cheney was found dead in the bathroom of her Adelaide home. Her fiancé, Henry Keogh said he found her after returning from a visit to his mum.

It became a murder case, where Henry Keogh was the only suspect.

Here’s a re-enactment from the trial, where Keogh was questioned by the Crown Prosecutor, Paul Rofe.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]How long after you stopped your car in the carport at Homes Avenue was it before you found Anna Jane?

Henry Keogh: [reconstruction]As long as it would have taken me to get out of my car, lock it, walk to the front door, open that, close it quickly because Jordan came running towards me, give him a quick pat, call out ‘Hello’, see that Anna wasn’t on the chesterfields, stick my head around the arch, see that she wasn’t on the phone; turn around, call out again and walk towards the bedroom, however long that takes.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]Perhaps a minute or so.

Henry Keogh: [reconstruction]Approximately, yes.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]Once you found her, you immediately took her out of the bath?

Henry Keogh: [reconstruction]I tried to get her out of the bath immediately, yes. I would have immediately checked Anna’s pulse. There was none.

Hagar Cohen: Henry Keogh’s motive was said to be money. He’d taken out five insurance policies in Anna Jane Cheney’s name.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]So there’s no mistake, I am suggesting you killed Anna Jane Cheney, at least in part, hoping to benefit from those five policies.

Henry Keogh: [reconstruction]No.

Hagar Cohen: The defence argued there was never a murder, and that Anna Jane Cheney’s death was an accident. But the prosecution said the circumstances of the death were highly suspicious. Prosecutor Paul Rofe put it to the jury.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]On 15th March last year, Anna Jane Cheney celebrated her 29th birthday. She was a fit, healthy, young woman. She had a promising career as a lawyer. She thought she was about to be married. Three days later, she was dead, drowned in the bath of her home in Magill. And on the Crown case, with recent bruising particularly on the left lower leg consistent with grip mark.

Hagar Cohen: The grip mark was only part of the story. Henry Keogh had two other girlfriends at the time he was engaged to Anna Jane Cheney. And he also took out the insurance policies on her life by forging her signature on them.

Here’s Paul Rofe again in his opening address to the jury.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]Her fiancé, Henry Vincent Keogh, stood to benefit $1-million-150,000 from her death as a result of five insurance policies he had taken out on her life some 12 months previously, policies for which he was the agent, co-owner and sole beneficiary. The accused, now aged 40 on the Crown case, was responsible for Ms Cheney’s death and he stands before you charged with murder.

Hagar Cohen: Henry Keogh maintained his fiancé knew about the insurance policies. A few days after the death of Anna Jane Cheney, police questioned him about the unusual financial arrangements.

At the trial, Henry Keogh was asked by the prosecutor about this visit by police.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]You knew, did you not, that the police had you under suspicion because of the amount of money involved. The will, the insurance, the house, as you told us this morning.

Henry Keogh: [reconstruction]I didn’t know the basis for that suspicion.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]Again, are you seriously suggesting that you didn’t know why you were under suspicion?

Henry Keogh: [reconstruction]I believed that it would all blow over. I really didn’t believe it could be a serious thought on the police’s mind that I had killed Anna Jane. I thought it would blow over.

Paul Rofe: [reconstruction]I suggest not only did you think it would blow over, but in time you would be able to successfully claim on the five policies you had taken out on Anna Jane’s life.

Henry Keogh: [reconstruction]No.

Hagar Cohen: The jury decided Henry Keogh was guilty of murder, and it was widely reported by the South Australian press.

ABC NEWS THEME

Reporter: The judge told Keogh his principal motive was greed. More than a million dollars in life insurance policies. It was an elaborate and coldly planned scheme to kill Ms Cheney and profit from her death. The judge said he was satisfied Ms Cheney had no idea Keogh stood to gain so much.

Hagar Cohen: A key element of the evidence for the prosecution was the grip mark on the ankle of the deceased. It was a sign, the Crown argued, that Henry Keogh had forced his fiancé under water in the bath. An expert witness for the prosecution was Dr Colin Manock, who had three decades of experience in forensic pathology.

He’d conducted around 10,000 autopsies in his career, and the autopsy on Anna Jane Cheney was Dr Manock’s last big case before his retirement. His interpretation of what happened is disputed by Keogh’s legal team, and is central to their argument that the case should be reviewed.

Dr Manock has never spoken out publicly about the Keogh case, until now. He agreed to speak to Background Briefing about the case and how he diagnosed the signs of murder.

Colin Manock: Well, we just said, cause of death was drowning in fresh water.

Hagar Cohen: But how did it happen?

Colin Manock: I think that she was in the bath and I think she was relaxing, and I think that someone close to her who she had every confidence in, was probably kneeling or crouching by the side of the bath, and he put his right hand under the heels and lifted them up until the legs were vertical, at which stage her body would slide further down the bath, and at that stage when the legs passed above her head, his left hand gripped her left ankle, which puts the left thumb on the inside of the left calf, and in that position folded over almost jack-knife position, she was unable to struggle very much.

Hagar Cohen: Are you confident that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Henry Keogh had actually murdered Anna Cheney?

Colin Manock: Yes, I am.

Hagar Cohen: And you were confident of that all along? Nothing’s ever changed?

Colin Manock: Yes, that’s right.

Hagar Cohen: Dr Manock’s murder scenario was based on a 1915 murder case in England, known as the Brides in the Baths. George Joseph Smith drowned all three of his brides in the bath during their honeymoons. He did that, using a particular method that killed the women very quickly, and left no serious injuries on their bodies. Back in 1915, George Smith’s motive was money.

When Dr Manock observed the grip mark on Anna Jane Cheney’s leg, and the condition of her lungs suggested that she had drowned, he believed the murder scenario was clear.

Colin Manock: I read the copy of the transcripts from the George Joseph Smith case. I was quite familiar with the circumstances. And when I saw the circumstances of Anna Jane’s death, it was like seeing a friend across the street; I’d seen it all before.

Hagar Cohen: Dr Manock’s use of the 1915 scenario, concerned a number of pathologists reviewing the Keogh case. For example, Melbourne-based Dr Byron Collins, has been asked by Keogh’s defence to scrutinise the autopsy findings from the trial. He’s been working as an independent forensic pathologist since the early ’70s.

Dr Byron Collins says comparing the Brides in the Baths theory to the death of Anna Jane Cheney was distracting and irrelevant.

Byron Collins: I think really it’s drawing a long bow. Each case has its own specific individual characteristics. And that is what needs to be assessed at the time, and if one tries to relate a particular set of circumstances such as in this case, as something that has occurred previously, it may well cloud the mind and fetter the processes of reasoned deductive exercises. So while I think you know, it gives a good description for the press of Brides in the Bath type drowning, I think that’s about as far as it goes. It doesn’t serve any useful purpose in my mind in assisting –

Hagar Cohen: What about a diagnostic purpose?

Byron Collins: No, it serves no diagnostic purpose whatsoever.

Hagar Cohen: Dr Byron Collins.

As Keogh’s legal team continued their investigations, more questions about the murder theory emerged. The most hotly disputed part of the evidence is the existence of a grip mark.

Dr Manock stands by his diagnosis of a grip mark.

Colin Manock: What’s a grip mark? Well, you’ve got four fingers and a thumb, and if you grip something firmly, then the little finger doesn’t usually leave a mark, it’s usually the index and the middle finger that are the strongest, and the thumb. But we found three bruises on one side, and an opposition mark on the other side of the leg would be the thumb.

Hagar Cohen: That mark, how do you know it was a bruise, and how do you know that it was indeed the thumb?

Colin Manock: Well it’s the only way you can space the fingers to do it, and I know it’s a bruise because I cut into it, and you could see the blood in the tissues.

Hagar Cohen: This method of examination is known as histology. A bruise is a collection of blood in the tissue, usually confirmed through histology. But years later, during an inquiry by the South Australian Medical Board, which we’ll hear more about later, Dr Manock said that histology did not prove there was a bruise. Background Briefing asked Dr Manock how he could explain the conflicting evidence.

Colin Manock: This is 16 years ago, I can’t remember. We did something unusual. I’m talking about the way in which the bruises, I’ll call them, reacted to different wavelengths of light. If you have a red mark and you illuminate it with a red light, it looks white, or it disappears altogether. But if you illuminate it with blue light, it turns black. So if you’ve got something which is very faintly red, and you illuminate it with blue or even green light, and it turns black, then that would suggest that there’s a red pigment there.

Hagar Cohen: So can you say with certainty that that bruise in the inner side of the left leg, which you call the thumb bruise, was indeed a bruise?

Colin Manock: Yes.

Hagar Cohen: And was caused by the thumb?

Colin Manock: That is my opinion, yes.

Hagar Cohen: I’ll just tell you again. From what I read, my understanding was that in the medical tribunal you actually said that the thumb mark, you couldn’t actually say whether it was a bruise or not.

Colin Manock: I think that was only into consideration the histology.

Hagar Cohen: OK, so what are you taking into consideration now?

Colin Manock: The appearance under different coloured lights, that makes the difference.

Hagar Cohen: Dr Manock’s polilight evidence was not put to the jury. So the question about the scientific validity of this method never came up.

An expert in forensic photography, Professor Gale Spring, has extensive experience using the polilight, and he is familiar with the evidence in the Keogh trial. Professor Spring says the polilight technique would be of no use in this instance.

Gale Spring: The curious thing is, if you can see the bruise with your eye, the polilight’s probably not going to give you much more information than that. Where the polilight or ultraviolet radiation might assist in visualising some things actually when, say, days, weeks, months after an incident, where a bruise may no longer visually be seen, but this kind of technique could actually show where a bruise might have been. That technique will actually make the invisible become visible, and with the Keogh case it becomes interesting that this technique would have been used on what I understand was bruises that were already visually there; you could see them. So the polilight would have been probably of no use whatsoever.

Hagar Cohen: But what else can it be? I mean we know that there’s a mark; it looks visually as if it was a grip mark because you’ve got the three marks on the outer side of the left leg, and then the thumb mark; what else can it be?

Gale Spring: Well I’m afraid I can’t say what it is, and once again, I think this is where photography in forensic situations can be kind of dangerous, because once you produce a photograph which many people believe just as fact, and then you put a story with that photograph, people begin to read into photographs what they’re told. So I was never convinced that it actually was fingermarks or thumbprints, or whatever. What it is, nobody will know.

Hagar Cohen: Professor Gale Spring.

By 2004, the team investigating the Keogh case decided to complain about Dr Manock to the South Australian Medical Board.

They claimed Dr Manock’s autopsy at the Keogh trial was incompetent and his work on the case amounted to unprofessional conduct.

After extensive investigations and a second inquiry, it was referred to the medical tribunal.

The tribunal accepted that Dr Manock had made some mistakes, but cleared him of unprofessional conduct.

Reader: We find that those deficiencies were trivial or harmless.

Holding a mistaken opinion by itself does not amount to unprofessional conduct.

There is no basis for criticising the opinion of Dr Manock as to the cause of death.

There are valid criticisms of the autopsy which even Dr Manock acknowledged was less than perfect. However for the reasons which we have expressed, we do not regard those criticisms as a cause for disciplinary action.

Share this:

About Ken Parish

Ken Parish is a legal academic at Charles Darwin University, with research areas in public law (constitutional and administrative law) and teaching & learning theory and practice. He has been a legal academic for almost 12 years. Before that he ran a legal practice in Darwin for 15 years and was a Member of the NT Legislative Assembly for almost 4 years in he early 1990s.

131 Responses to Taking a bath can be dangerous …

This case is ridiculous. Keough was an insurance agent who wrote the policies for the commission and to boost his sales figures; he would have to be stupid beyond belief to have thought he could have collected upon her death – he did not fully disclose Anna Chaneys medical history so the policies were always deliberately invalid.
Unjust people know incompetent people cooked up this nonsense case; it is disgraceful.

Hi Ken, Seeing this old case again caught me by surprise. There was no motive for Henry Keogh to murder Anna Cheney; the insurance policies were always obviously invalid. This should be made into a film.

There is a good deal about this post by Ken to which one could respond:
The defamation point is really interesting and perhaps I could write about that separately in view of the recent High Court decision refusing leave to appeal.
“alleged inadequacies in Dr Manock’s autopsy and his evidence at Keogh’s trial”
in a couple of articles to be published later this week, I will point out that Dr Manock has given sworn evidence before the Medical Board and Tribunal in which he stated that key components in his evidence at trial were wrong. I think therefore we can drop the “alleged”.
“Unfortunately for them (and Keogh) the High Court twice rejected these arguments”
The High Court refused leave to appeal – which meant that it didn’t hear the arguments. In fact, over 10 years no court has heard submissions going to the substance of the complaint about a miscarriage of justice.
As to the SA Medical Board enquiry which found “There is no basis for criticising the opinion of Dr Manock as to the cause of death.”
You should have a look at the internal documents from the Board where the specialist on the Board were extremely critical of the autopsy – and said
“The autopsy was sub-standard. The information recorded was deficient in detail and substance. For example, the absence of organ weights and the minimal histological examination characterise an autopsy falling remarkably short of what might be considered a minimum data set appropriate for any autopsy, let alone a forensic autopsy. It is the absence of data that is the problem in this case because it renders the conclusions untestable.
The conclusions drawn by Dr Manock, even if reasonable and even if correct went beyond the available evidence which did not appear to allow exclusion of alternative diagnoses and did not explore potential natural antecedents to drowning. The question of to what extent alternatives might have been explored could be argued but my point is that the information assembled and recorded does not allow subsequent reflection on alternatives.”http://netk.net.au/MedicalBoard/Coleman16mar.asp
As Ken would know, under the principles set out by the High Court in Nudd v The Queen, M v The Queen and many other cases, that would be quite sufficient to have the conviction set aside.
Its also worth bearing in mind that both forensic specialists at the trial for the prosecution accepted that they had failed to disclose the exculpatory result of a key forensic test – again, that alone would justify overturning the conviction. As would the non-disclosure by the Coroner of his Findings in the baby deaths inquiry.
“Moles struck me as an intense, determined and possibly even obsessive-compulsive chap, an impression heightened by perusal of his voluminous website about the Keogh case.”
I find this particularly interesting in the light of Ken’s recently avowed interest in critical examination of cognitive bias – something I’d like to assist him with especially in the forensic context. Ken published his comment in December 2010 – a person reading it might think that Moles is obsessed about the Keogh case – the book to which Ken refers (A state of Injustice – 2004) discussed a dozen cases of which Keogh was one. In 2006 I did publish a book devoted to the Keogh case. However, earlier in 2010 I also jointly published a book on law and miscarriages of justice in Australia, Britain and Canada (some 450 pages) in which the Keogh case was not discussed at all.http://netk.net.au/ForensicInvestigationsHome.asp
As for the “voluminous website about the Keogh case” any fair minded person would have to say that the Keogh case occupies less than 1% of the web site.
If we really want to encourage crical thinking about the legal system in Australia, we mustn’t demonstrate such cognitive bias whilst pretending not to have any,
Bob

No she didn’t – and although this was not checked at the time of the trial is has been checked since. However see this chapter http://netk.net.au/ltg/LTG13.asp
heading “sudden adult death”.
It is not entirely uncommon for the first occurrence of a condition to be fatal, in which case medical history is not predictive. At trial the jury was repeatedly told that the deceased was fit and healthy prior to her death, and so one could infer a murderous assault. The point made in the medical literature is that sudden adult death occurs more frequently amongst elite athletes.
The error made by the medical tribunal was to accept that the pathologist had not properly examined the heart or brain, but to then go on and say that there was no reason to expect that there was anything wrong with the heart and brain, so the failure to examine them was not cause for concern. Obviously this involves a simple error of logic. The reason for examining something is possibly to find something which you might not otherwise know about.

“we mustn’t demonstrate such cognitive bias whilst pretending not to have any ..”

I don’t pretend not to possess a range of cognitive biases. Everyone does, that’s the point. the best anyone can do is attempt to recognise them and interrogate our own reasoning processes as honestly as possible, and wherever possible avoid leaping to conclusions (even tentative ones) before examining the evidence, and so forth.

In particular, in an area like this I certainly have some very strong biases, and not just cognitive ones. My wife’s mother was murdered some years ago in front of my then 7 year old daughter. The murderer’s lawyers tried to defend him inter alia on the basis of psychiatric evidence which fortunately was comprehensively discredited. The case was very different from Keogh, but similar at least to the extent of my reaction that Keogh’s defence IMO is just as lacking in merit as the defence of Rene’s killer.

Clearly my subjective reaction is heavily informed by my own experiences and prejudices/biases. Regular readers of Troppo are aware of these biases because I’ve written about the situation several times over the years and mention it when it’s relevant to a current issue (as it is here at least tangentially). Being aware of my own biases I deliberately chose as a practitioner (before becoming an academic) not to involve myself in criminal matters. Nevertheless, while acknowledging my own bias/lack of objectivity, I must say I find the arguments against Keogh’s conviction to be singularly unconvincing.

Ken, I think that’s a very fair response. I’m very sorry to learn of your terrible experience.
My only criticism would be the last sentence. In what way would it be unconvincing? Bearing in mind that legally speaking the appeal court is only concerned with whether the accused got a fair trial – not whether he is innocent or guilty. In our law, that can only be determined by a jury. In fact, for a legal practitioner to express a view on guilty / innocent could amount to unprofessional conduct.
The law states that where evidence given at trial is subsequently proved to lack probative value – the court must act and set aside the conviction – M v The Queen. The point is that the chief crown witness has stated on oath in the medical board proceedings that the evidence he gave on six crucial points was wrong (that at least means – lacked probative value).
It seems to me that the law is clear – the facts are beyond dispute – this is one of the few instances where syllogistic reasoning could lead one to a compellable conclusion. Of course there could then be a retrial of the issue using correct evidence.

I don’t have time to re-acquaint myself with the case to the extent that I was when I wrote this post, and even if I did your grasp of it would still no doubt be much greater than mine. Suffice to say that my impression was that, a little like the Bradley Murdoch one in the NT a few years ago, the case against Keogh is compelling even if one discounts Manock’s evidence that the mark on the deceased’s inner ankle was a thumbprint. The reelvant provision in the NT Criminal Code is s 411(2):

“411. Determination of appeal in ordinary cases
(1) The Court on any such appeal against a finding of guilt shall allow the appeal if it is of the opinion that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence or that the judgment of the court of trial should be set aside on the ground of the wrong decision on any question of law or that on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice and in any other case shall dismiss the appeal.
(2) The Court may, notwithstanding that it is of the opinion that the point or points raised by the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.”

It is both relevant and proper for an appellate court (or a commentator whether or not he is a lawyer) to make observations as to how compelling the evidence as a whole appears for the purpose of considering whether there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice in admitting a particular piece of evidence. The evidence in the Murdoch case that was wrongly admitted (or at least admitted in part for a wrong purpose) was evidence of facial mapping technology which identified Murdoch at a truck stop in Alice Springs. Thus it was rather more peripheral to Murdoch’s guilt or innocence than whether or not the mark on Ms Cheney’s inner ankle was a thumbprint bruise. Nevertheless, Manock’s evidence that it WAS a thumbprint would still be admissible (I think) , it would just have had to be more heavily qualified as to whether that particular mark was a bruise. Taken together with all the other evidence it seems to me that the case against Keogh remains compelling.

Unfortunately I’m about to fly out on CDU business and won’t be able to participate further in this discussion over the next 10 days or so. You may well be able to negate or throw doubt on some of the above propositions. Feel free to do so. My cognitive and general biases almost certainly mean I won’t be convinced, but others may be. unlike Ms Cheney’s extended family, I would even be relatively unperturbed if you succeed one day in getting Keogh released, although I’d never use him as an insurance agent and I’d be very careful to take a shower rather than a bath if I knew he was in the vicinity (although Hitchcock’s Psycho would make that a nerve-racking prospect too).

But in principle.
There are a virtually infinite number of natural but unlikely causes of sudden death, how many hypothesis should you test for?
In the case of Lindy Chamberlain , there was no checking as to things other than fetal hemoglobin ( ie car rust proofing) that could produce the same reagent positive result. But in that case the prosecutions version of what had happened in the car was in itself bizarrely implausible. The science should have been sceptically checked , without it the case had little legs; no motive, no body, so on .

In the Anna Cheny case, the woman drowned i.e she was breathing when she went under the water. She could have become suddenly unconscious because of some unknown(possibly undetectable) medical condition and thus drowned or some force held her under water until she was dead.
She had bruising on her ankles -not very consistent with her just nodding off in the bath. The science fits a very plausible version of what happened.

Actually John, this is not correct. There is no convincing evidence that she drowned. In fact the autopsy report states that the airway of the deceased was “packed with gastric contents”. If you think that through, that means that she could not have drowned. If there had been water in the airway at the time the gastric contents were expelled, they would have mixed with water and could not then have ‘packed’ the airway.
There is no evidence that she was breathing when she went ‘under the water’. The pathologist at trial said that he could prove that she was breathing before being submerged, but then at the Medical Tribunal he stated that in this respect he was in error. The principle he thought was a principle did not exist.
Drowning is accepted in the literature to be a diagnosis of exclusion – there are no signs with are ‘pathognomic’ of drowning. Therefore one has at least to examine the heart and brain the exclude stroke or heart attack. This was not done.
It is alleged that there were bruises to the leg. In fact, the tissue slide from one of the two tested showed no signs of it being a bruise. That’s a 50% failure rate. That finding was not disclosed at the time of the trial. Other possible explanations for bruising to the leg was that the deceased was picked up and carried out of the house before being placed on a stretcher. If they were bruises they could have been caused post-mortem – artifactual. Indeed, the independent pathologist stated that in his opinion, the ‘signs of bruising’ most likely occurred during the post mortem – leakage of blood whilst taking the sample. See his affadavit at http://netk.net.au/Reports/Affidavits_List.asp (Dr Tony Thomas)
The whole point of our critique is that none of the pathology evidence actually accords with the standards for ‘expert opinion’ in a criminal trial. The biggest concern is that the person giving the expert opinion was never properly trained or qualified and therefore was not ‘an expert’. As was said of his evidence in the R v Perry case – it was an appalling departure from acceptable standards, and was not fit to be taken into consideration. http://netk.net.au/soi/SOI9.asp – on R v Perry
Of that particular expert the coroner had concluded in the baby death findings this his autopsy reports achieved the opposite of their intended purpose – they closed off inquries instead of opening them up – that he said he saw things which could not have been seen, because they were subsequently found not to exist (as we say of the grip-mark in the Keogh case).http://netk.net.au/soi/SOI12.asp – on the baby deaths
As mentioned the nondisclosure of the baby deaths report on its own justifies the overturning of the Keogh verdict.
Incidentally, the pattern of marks he alleges do not fit a right hand from below the leg – nor a left hand from above which are the only 2 scenarios put forward by that pathologist. His revised view was that the bruises to the leg were caused by a left hand – but he’d told the jury that the left hand was holding the head under the water.
This is explained here: http://netk.net.au/ltg/LTG14.asp
The basic principle is that the key witness had admitted that his evidence at trial was wrong, and so invalidates the trial.

As to Ken’s point in evaluating the whole of the evidence with regard to their being a miscarriage of justice. “(2) The Court may, notwithstanding that it is of the opinion that the point or points raised by the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.” That provision is called ‘the proviso’ and the cases make it clear that it does not apply if there has been a signficant non-disclosure – as for example the failure to disclose the Baby Death findings. The reason for this is that you must have a trial by jury, not a trial wih the judge of the court of appeal acting as jury. So, the appeal judges cannot determine what the jury would have made of the non-disclosed evidence.
The other point is that where there has been significant error at trial the proviso does not apply – by definition, it only applies to insignificant error.
In some of the cases, the courts have said that a conviction must be set aside, even where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Because the principle is that guilty as well as innocent people are entitled to a fair trial.
In my study of cases in Australia, Britain and Canada, I have never come across another case where there have been so many errors in the evidence admitted at trial as there have been in the Keogh case.

John, at trial the cause of death was said to have been drowning – and the manner of death forcible drowning. Throughout most of the proceedings, this finding has been taken to be conclusive. But just because an error is repeated often does not make it truthful.
Routine toxicology was done, and was said to have ruled out many of the more common drugs. Her blood alcohol was accepted to be in the range of 0.1 which is not entirely consistent with the narrative of just a couple of glasses of wine several hours before.
Whilst the body was at the scene, one specialist says that compression must have been applied to the face to reduce swelling, and makeup was applied. Extraordinary!
It is my opinion and that of many forensic specialists that the most that can be said is that the cause of death was not properly established and cannot now be established. It is extraordinary that the body was cremated within 10 days. At the time the law only allowed for a burial in these circumstances – unresolved criminal allegations. There are no colour photos at autopsy – indeed, not a single photo to identify the body at autopsy. Only black and white photos said to be of bruising. A forensic photographer says they are of no probative value at all. Without proper forensic testing of other organs, there are many possible and reasonable causes of death which simply were not investigated. The affidavits from the various specialists can be seen here:http://netk.net.au/Reports/Affidavits_List.asp
I’d be happy to send you a copy of the book (with my compliments) if you’d like to read more about it – just email your address to “[email protected]”

there was said to have been fluid in the lungs which the pathologist took to be bath water. However, with the blockage to the airway the question arises how it could have got from the bath to the lungs (not answered or even queried).

I a sudden cardiac, drug related or asphixial death one would expect to find fluid in the lungs. The fluid is essentially protein based plasma which has come out of the blood. However if testing was done on the fluid, and soap or bath salts or diatoms from the bath water were to be found it it, that could provide a link to the bath as the source. In this case, the water was released from the bath by the girl’s father without any samples being retained. The fluid in the lungs was not tested for these things so the assertion that it was bath water was without any scientific basis. She was an average size woman.
Some articles here on sudden death: http://netk.net.au/MedicalHome.asp
And this article: http://netk.net.au/Articles/Ryan.asp
Yes, the make-up was applied as she lay naked and dead on the floor of her bedroom.
I have your address, so I’ll post the book with a couple of DVDs containing a number of programs which will explain these issues in further detail. I think you’ll find them interesting,

It seems that a lot of the experts ,that you report, in particular doubted that the important question; whether the immediate cause of death was by inhaling water- had been rigorously examined. A narrative of Murder by drowning dose need drowning as a starting condition.

A few years ago I had a sudden totally unexpected severe allergic shock reaction (to a tick bite). I was with my wife who (luckily) had strong antihistamines with her , none the less it was a very sudden and very scary experience.

The description given below of Ms Chaney face- swelling of face and lips- is very easy for me to vividly imagine.

From your (summary) of Affidavit of Associate Professor Tony Thomas:

Drug screening incomplete

The documentary evidence of the drug screens which were said to have been undertaken in this case were insufficient to exclude a drug-related cause of death. A full toxicological analysis of the blood should have been undertaken. It is not clear if the screening which was undertaken was able to exclude drugs which were on the premises. Certain tablets were found in the bedroom/study. The following entry appeared in one statement:
>From Detective Man I received the following items.
1. 10.09 pm. A plastic bottle with printed label [drug named] located on top of bookshelf in bedroom/study.

That drug is a non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). Such drugs used to relieve pain, reduce inflammation, swelling, redness and soreness, which may occur in different types of arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis or osteo-arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis in muscle and bone injuries such as strains, sprains, lower back pain rheumatism and tendonitis, and in menstrual cramps. The medicine is available only with a doctor’s prescription and not to be taken if there is any allergy to it, or any of the ingredients listed, or if one has taken aspirin or any other NSAID medicine. The manufacturer states:

“Allergic reaction
Symptoms of an allergic reaction may include asthma, wheezing or shortness of breath, swelling of the face, lips or tongue, which may cause difficulty in swallowing or breathing, hives, itching or skin rash or fainting. Symptoms which may occur include drowsiness, stomach upset, vomiting, nausea, dizziness or light-headedness.”

Where there is a specific warning that a known side effect is an allergic reaction, which could produce drowsiness, dizziness, or light-headedness, then it would have been essential, in the circumstances, to undertake appropriate tests to determine if the deceased had this drug in her system. There was no report that this was done. In that case, one can only conclude that it was not done.

The colour photographs taken by the police at the scene provide clear evidence that the deceased had swelling of the face and lips. The manufacturer of the drug stated that it can cause ‘shortness of breath’, ‘difficulty in swallowing or breathing’ and ‘fainting’. The issue of fainting was canvassed extensively at the trial. This issue should have been properly examined and excluded. It was not.

Is there a plan of the bathroom? Was it a bath with the taps in the middle ? -Very few people relax in a bath with their head at the tap end- Could a person easily stand at the end of the bath were her feet were?

Who was the person who applied the make up?
Who found the body /reported the event?

One other question- I understand that CPR was attempted? , if so who by? Were their the sorts of bruising and sternum damage that CPR often causes?

Anaphylactic reactions can happen very suddenly , are a significant cause of death and they can involve violent reactions to innocuous proteins that had previously caused no problems and/or proteins that you have not previously encountered.

Yes, the bath was one with the taps on the wall half way along the bath. It was said that for some reason the deceased was sitting at the plug end of the bath. I think most people would accept that as being highly unlikely, as it would be very uncomfortable.
The more likely explanation is that she collapsed as she was getting in or out of the bath and that is just how she ended up.
If in fact there had been some ‘murderous assault’ whilst she was in the bath, it is highly likely that injuries would have been caused by coming into contact with the taps.
The make-up was applied by the mother of the deceased.
Henry Keogh said he found her collapsed in the bath and rang the police and ambulance.
One ambulance officer said that Keogh’s story was suspicious because of the water in the airway.
The other ambulance officer said that Keogh’s story was suspicious because of the absence of water in the airway.
Re anaphylaxis, there is a mark on the leg of the deceased apparent on a photograph at the sccene consistent with a bee sting or injection mark. It was not noted at the time nor examined.
Keogh said he attempted CPR but could not get a clear airway. The ambulance officers said the same. Damage to the chest area was not reported. The autopsy report can be seen here:http://netk.net.au/Keogh/Keogh22.asp
Although it says blood alcohol at 0.8% in trial evidence they said that because of the dilution effect from the water, the ante-mortem level could have been as high as 0.1%.

Sounds like the investigations thinking about the range of possible motive(s) for taking out life insurance , on a alive and well wife, was recursively colored by her subsequent sudden death. The investigations starting condition was actually an assumption about motive that there was one – that linked the policies and her death in a causative way- and this introduced a unconscious selection bias toward narratives (of her death ) that showed signs of motive and resulted in a lack of enough attention being given to testing narratives of a misadventure/purposeless kind.
Feel that without the assumption of motive the events in that bathroom become more opaque; there are explanations that look more plausible- more in line with the picture that I see- than murder by drowning.

Its called ‘tombstoning’ – because the commissions on the setting up of the life policies are sufficient to cover the cost of premiums for the first 2-3 years, the agent can take out a policy and then cancel after that time without cost to himself. So, where’s the benefit? This is to be found in the ‘new business’ figures which in some cases might secure a promotion because they are artificially inflated, and which is Keogh’s case, he hoped would be sufficient to keep his agencies open.
I’m very interested in the ways in which thought processes develop in investigations, especially where they can be seen to have gone wrong, and particularly when those with responsibilities to question them fail to do so.

“artificially inflated, and which is Keogh’s case” can be independently verified ?

Take it that he did not have large gambling type debts?

Have you ever read much of S J Gould on unconscious ‘paradigm’ related investigative bias ?

The chamberlain case is interesting example – because the idea that a dingo could have really done it was assumed by the investigators to be intrinsicaly impossible, it created a situation where a otherwise implausible prosecution narrative was ‘over tested’ for.
In a cooler light the prosecution narrative was pretty implausible- While on holiday with her apparently quite normal family, mother kills baby in the car, husband(and the two other children ?) help dispose of body , concoct an implausible ‘ cover story’, proceed to public camping area , behave perfectly normally for hours and then announce that they had spotted a dingo and that the baby was missing.

The starting condition- ruling out of the possibility that they were telling the truth- made it possible for otherwise quite intelligent people to believe a very absurd story.

Mr Parish
According to a long term friend and former flatmate “in twelve years I have never known her[Anna] to have a liking for baths” Anna’s house cleaner also stated that the bath in that house had never (previously) been used.

So a woman who had little liking for baths, comes home after a hard days work (her job involved bringing actions against other Lawyers) and decides to do something she normally had little liking for; Why?- Because it is necessary for the ‘ plotted’ murder story??? Or because Keogh somehow talked her into a bath? – her job suggests that she had Character – that story is not likely either.

Could it be that Anna did something unusual (on the evening she died) because she herself, on the evening she died, was feeling ‘unusual’, ‘not quite her self’, ‘a bit odd’, she suddenly felt slightly unwell and thought ‘maybe a bath might help’ ?

The bruise marks are equally consistent with clumsy dragging out of bath and clumsy CPR.
The insurance policy’s are also equally consistent with a bit of artificially boosting your standing as an agent.

I ask you, who would think of a plot involving, drowning in a bathtub, somebody who was rarely if ever to be found, in a bath tub?

I’m not sure that it was specifically disputed. I think the response must be that it was irrelevant. The claim after all was not that she ‘never’ took baths. There was evidence from a house cleaner that because the bath was not used frequently, it might have well been very slippery because he polished it every week. The infrequency of baths cannot possibly distinguish between accident or homicide, and therefore should have been regarded as inadmissible because it was ‘non probative’. It did not tend to prove any of the facts in issue.
Did the book arrive ok?

The Quote from her long term friend and former flatmate “in twelve years I have never known her[Anna] to have a liking for baths” is from your book, do you have context to it?

“she ‘never’ took baths” is not needed, it just needs to be that on the ‘odd’ occasion she took a bath ; its the combination of – long term intention , a particular method needing a particular situation AND the need for unusual (unpredictable) behavior by the victim that makes the idea of a ‘plotted in advance’ event, a bit implausible .

The prosecution narrative is not of a unplanned act of violence , hence if bath was odd behavior by the victim, homicide becomes a fairly implausible story.

Bob
Don’t know about Henry, he does come across as pretty slippery.
However because he was an ‘obvious’ cause of her ‘odd/unexpected’ death in a bathtub, he also sort of blocked the view ; the examination for causes ,of her unexpected death, that were ‘internal’ to Anna was very cursory.

Feel that they did not look past Henry at all. It reminds me of the post about Chess problems.

A man who could misdiagnose a very battered baby with a fractured spine as :a death caused broncho-pneumonia! (3 times!!)

If the crown summing up had stated that the reason why causes of death, internal to Ms Cheney, were excluded was because they had not been properly examined what do you think the verdict would have been?

1. If the same level of medical competency was applied to practicing medicine to save the lives of the AG would he be quite as tolerant of the errors – oh whoops sorry I made another mistake – oh well another live lost!!

Look at the actual words coming out of Mattocks own mouth

when asked about the fact that there was no compelling medical evidence of
murder (see channel 9 interview) Maddock said ahh but there was circumstantial
evidence

By it’s very definition – medical tests are medical tests are medical tests

Medical test results are not influenced by insurance policies or girlfriends

To use the AG’s own family – if his family member has a blood test – the results are the results – they are not influenced by “Circumstances” – they are simply medical fact

Some interesting and thoughtful comments there Aggie:
we have been promoting proposals in Australia and with UK authorities that there be a pre-trial hearing to establish the soundness of expert evidence proposed to be admitted at trial. There have been so many convictions overturned in the UK because of incorrect or unsubstantiated expert opinions, that the trial judges need to do more to ensure that expert opinions going to the jury really have some basis to them.
Of course, it is entirely inappropriate for an expert witness to be influenced by matters external to their sphere of expertise.
It is also inappropriate for an expert witness to express a personal opinion about the guilt of otherwise of an accused person.
R v Boucher is the Canadian case in point and which has been cited with approval in UK and Australia.

There should be expert opinion as opinion from a suitably qualified expert. This expert should be neither defence or crown, they should have no knowledge of the parties involved. Their expertise should be confined to the issue at hand, in other words a “blind evaluation”. This should mitigate concerns of bias. Surely it cannot be too difficult to establish a pool of experts in various displines.

Thanks Bob
I suspect there will also be more lawyers with further degrees in their area of specialty – eg engineer/lawyer, dental/lawyer – certainly doing double degrees seems to be the norm
How will all this help Henry though – what to do, what to do ….

I’ve just added a new doc to the Keogh Homepage –http://netk.net.au/KeoghHome.asp
Statement of Claim in the matter of Estate of Anna Cheney v Life Insurance Companies.
This makes it clear that Anna Cheney knew that Keogh had arranged some life insurances on her life – and that he had done so in good faith and that she had explicitly relied upon the fact that he had done so. It obviously follows that she knew that he had signed her name to the applications, because she had not done so.
This rather undermines the claims made at his trial that she was ignorant of the insurances, and being a lawyer would never have allowed him to sign documents on her behalf.
I understand that the insurance companies paid a significant sum of money to the Cheney estate.

The last comment by Moles demonstrates the inadequacy of all the arguments that the supporters of keogh peddle.

To say, “…It obviously follows that she knew that he had signed her name to the applications, because she had not done so…” is ridiculous.

Given that Keogh was the agent with access to all the required forms I would suggest that Anna-jane signed the forms for the amount of insurance that she thought she had and subsequently Keogh filled out and forged her signature on new applications without her knowledge, which he then presented to the insurance companies.

My understanding was that all of the five forms were signed by the same person. At trial, it was said that that person was Keogh. If that was not correct as Mark claims, then that amounts to a further error at trial.
A series of articles have been published on this and related issues by Lexis Nexis – they can be accessed at the Networked Knoweledge homepage: http://netk.net.au
As for the point “the inadequacy of all the arguments that the supporters of keogh peddle” it is illogical. Even if there were an error on one point, that would not prove the inadequacy of other points.
It should be appreciated that Mark is the brother of Anna Cheney, and this might account for the somewhat disrepectful tone of the comment.

I do not usually engage in ‘forum’ over this matter.
But I do my best, to keep abreast of what is ‘published’.

I note, Dr Moles has been kind enough to furnish you with a copy of his first book, “State of Injustice”, which included some detail over the death of Anna Jane Cheney.

There is a reference in the book to me.
It is pleasing to see, after 14 years since my concerns were first raised over the death of Anna Jane Cheney. That discussion, such as is occurring here, with sensible objective minds is continuing.

I have particularly chosen to speak to you, as your previous experience of an ‘allergic’ reaction, appears to have brought you to understanding of the urgency of such an event, something that was not considered in the remotest way, by the pathologist involved in the autopsy, nor as it stands in the case of Henry Keogh, in the Court.

You may care to look at some video placed on ‘youtube’, as, 23investigator Anna Jane Ross Cheney.

Whilst the objective of the video presentations, is intended to show ‘broader considerations’, surrounding the tragic death. They may also serve to demonstrate the degree of swelling of the face, neck and ear that was present, when photographs were first taken at the scene of death, to then be depleted by the time the last photograph was taken showing the face.

Dear Mr Walker.
The ‘seven’ Video series, have been removed by YouTube, who advised at the time 9 April 2012, after having exhibited all seven since June 2011,
“that a family member of the victim submitted a complaint regarding your content. Out of respect for the victim and the family, we have removed the content in question”.
To date, a request made to YouTube, to explain what content they consider “inappropriate” as it has been labelled has not been answered.

Should Dr Moles be correct, that (you) are in fact the brother of Anna Jane Cheney, may I say how tragically sad the death of (your) sister is.

Assuming so.
But if not, the context of the following, is to help address possible misconceptions contained, or brought about, by the previous post of “Mark”. .

In respect to (your) opinion raised that Anna Jane Cheney, signed applications for portion of the insurance taken on her life in 1993, the reports by three document investigators ‘argues’ otherwise.
All three reports state, that none of the applications for insurance they were provided for ‘examination’, bore the signature of Anna Jane Cheney.
Which, whilst not an expert in these matters, from observation of the documents involved, this seems to be the case.

In that {you) have said, that Anna Jane Cheney advised (you), prior to her death, that she had cover on her life for a figure of $400,000.
As Dr Moles has stated, it would appear that she had to be aware, that the necessary application forms were filled in by another person than herself.

Whilst, this does not explain, for the remaining applications taken out in 1993,
whether Anna Jane Cheney was aware of them.
There is certainly, a considerable amount of other documentation pertaining to Anna Jane Cheney through the year 1993, and early 1994, which suggests she was aware of insurance on her life, above the $400,000, that (you) appear to have been made aware of.

Having spent an immense amount of time researching these considerations, it has brought me to the point of raising them with (you), with a hope that (you) may come to realise the opinion (you) have expressed is not supported by ‘proper’ consideration of documents, and that (you) may be able to come to some peace over this.

I am leaving this comment having stumbled across this case by accident but nevertheless find it endlessly fascinating. I would just like to correct a not insignificant point raised about Anna Cheney’s knowledge of how much life insurance had been arranged on her ” behalf.” Bob Moles suggested the followsing and I quote “Statement of Claim in the matter of Estate of Anna Cheney v Life Insurance Companies.
This makes it clear that Anna Cheney knew that Keogh had arranged some life insurances on her life – and that he had done so in good faith and that she had explicitly relied upon the fact that he had done so. It obviously follows that she knew that he had signed her name to the applications, because she had not done so.This rather undermines the claims made at his trial that she was ignorant of the insurances, and being a lawyer would never have allowed him to sign documents on her behalf.”

In fact it doesn’t make that clear at all. What it makes clear is that Anna Cheney knew that life insurance had been arranged on her behalf for $400,000 but she clearly had no idea the real amount was $1.2 million. In other words she did NOT know she had been insured for another $800,000. In my view that is a significant point.

It is very ‘dangerous’, to come to such a conclusion, without the benefit of all the documents that were provided the Court, regarding Anna Jane Cheney’s loan applications in the period 1993-4 to consider.

The prosecutor Rofe QC, was the one responsible for the provision and formulation of the documents, some, and ‘significantly’ very important ones, not until the second trial of Keogh was in progress.

Careful consideration of one set, which was used to argue, that Anna Jane Cheney was not aware of all the insurance, therefore not including it in her loan applications, come under serious concern, in the ‘form’ they were presented.
Sufficient to say at this point, the Bank Manager who was asked to give credibility too them, stated in his evidence, ‘he had never seen them before’, Rofe QC responding immediately, ‘I am not suggesting you have’.
David QC, who did not have the documents available prior to the second trial, obviously had his concern over them, showing annoyance, by referring to them by, the exercise that the prosecutor asked you to do in relation to adding up and dividing it to get $36 from this hand writtten thing here it just can’t apply to your case can it.

Damien when you get your head around all this, you may then be, in a better position to pass a judgement.

Who knows, there may be the assistance of the material going before an ICAC or a CCRC for proper forensic assessment, to assist you, along with many other people, to come to a better understanding, of misrepresentation, put before the Court, in the trial of Keogh.

Damien, thanks for the comment, but we must check carefully to see what you are disagreeing with. I merely said that Anna knew that Keogh had arranged “some” insurances on her life – and you agree that is correct. In order to determine whether or not she knew about the amount of the insurances you have to go to the loan forms which she completed. When applying for a bank loan she was asked how much per week she spent on life insurances. She put down the amount of $36 per week. Which is the correct amount to cover the cost of the $1.2m of life insurances which she had. This transcript provides the further details: http://netk.net.au/Keogh/Keogh60.asp

” There is documented evidence that Anna in fact knew about all five policies. Their weekly premiums totalled $36.00. The exact amount Anna put down as her weekly “life insurance” expenses in two separate bank loan applications she made in Nov 1993 and March 1994.”

Bob, thanks for the reply. This really is an intriguing case. Is there any chance of you uploading the documented evidence you mentioned? Would love to read it. Of course what you are saying is that Anna had full knowledge and was complicit in her partner’s intentions with regard to insurance policies real or otherwise.Also interested to know why the Court of Appeal in SA and the High Court either dismissed the appeal or refused to hear it? With my scant knowledge of this case it occurs to me that there appears to be a clear and present miscarriage of justice as Keogh supporters maintain and certainly the forensic “evidence” which the conviction was built around suggests there is a reasonable doubt then surely if follows the conviction is unsafe so why has there been no action on the part of the judiciary? Do they believe the conviction was safe? It doesn’t make sense. I would be interested to read the reasons published by the Court of Appeal and the High Court for refusing to give leave.

Call me cynical but from my reading of the evidence, this dubious conviction rests upon forensic examinations that should have been done but were not done by a pathologist who did a lot of criminal cases …….

I am very concerned whenever I hear any comments about Anna’s family and friends in relation to ensuring justice for Henry.
It can be no help to them to have Henry treated unjustly.
For real justice we need Anna and Henry’s family and friends to find what real peace they can.
Unjustly leaving Henry in jail now will not give Anna’s family and friends any more peace.
What is happening now.
What can we all as a community, do now
What can we do to ensure a Just society.
One day it could be your son, your husband, your friend – what can we all do now

Dear Damien,
this is the link to the Keogh Homepage: http://netk.net.au/KeoghHome.asp which has some of the legal cases on it – other legal cases arising from Medical Board proceedings are here: http://netk.net.au/Reports/KeoghIndex.asp#MedicalBoard
Some of the forensic docs are here: http://netk.net.au/Keogh/Keogh22.asp
If you go here you will see links to some of the online progs – with Discs 1-3 I can send you copies of the DVDs if you would like me to. You will see disc 3 prog 8 is about the insces and that will show you the docs involved. You can email me on “[email protected]” with your address for sending discs to. I also have copies of the keogh book still available.
In ten years of seeking legal redress, not one court has looked to the merits of Keogh’s appeal or petition application. In his first appeal, his barrister didn’t mention the non-disclosure of the baby deaths report – as to the significance of this see the article here: http://netk.net.au/CrimJustice/DirectLink1.pdf

Thanks for the reply. I have read the High Court transcript and their reasons for refusing leave to appeal and I quite frankly wonder if Mr Keogh’s predicament has a lot to do with the quality of the legal advice and representation he was receiving or should I say the lack there of.

It seems to me that the grounds that were argued before the High Court to try and persuade the jduges to grant leave was fatally flawed from the start. The argument clearly had no hope of getting across the line and the High Court judges did not wait anytime before kicking it to touch. And of course you have mentioned the behaviour of his barrister at the first appeal failing to mention the non disclosure of the baby deaths report.

Incredibly that man is now a District Court judge. I have read the reports of Professor Stephen Cordner, Byron Collins and Associate Professor Thomas who all professionally rubbish the findings of the pathologist who did the Cheney autopsy and the Ross review as pure fiction. The fact that so many established protocols were not followed is extraordinary.

There are substantive issues here that go to the very heart of our justice system. Surely there must be another avenue to have this tested and deliberated upon by the highest court in the land?

Dear Aggie, I agree, I don’t understand how any members of Anna’s family would want to resist a review of the case if it came to the wrong conclusion. We say there is no evidence that Anna was murdered – an accident / natural causes death has been misinterpreted as a homicide – as happened in the Nichols case in the UK – in that case the deceased had vomited and inhaled her own vomit as obviously happened in Anna’s case if you look at the autopsy report, available here: http://netk.net.au/Keogh/Keogh22.asp
The pathologist in the case has given sworn evidence that at least 5 of the basic principles he relied on at trial were not correct. That means that in law the conviction must be set aside. As you can see from my evidence to the parliament, there cannot be any sensible reason for an Attorney-General not to refer the matter back to the courts – http://netk.net.au/CCRC/LRCEvidence.pdf
As you say we are all threatened by this failure of the justice system and as many people as possible should have meetings, and write to the AG to say that something must be done.

You are right, Ken. Just because the pathologist may have made mistakes in other cases (out of a total of 10,000 – there will be errors) and even in the Keogh case – the potential error doesn’t warrant a new trial for a number of reasons you have already covered:
1. Most importantly, Keogh was not a credible witness! Even without the bruises being attributed to finger marks, this is a very strong circumstantial case – a healthy young woman dies in a bathtub and the last person to see her was Keogh, his lies to Anna, her parents, police, her forged signature, her parents distrust of him, his financial gain if she dies.
2. Through his behaviour, he has demonstrated that lying comes as naturally to him as breathing. A charming con-man. Lying doesn’t make you a murderer but it certainly doesn’t help Mr Keogh’s case.
3. It appears that Anna did not know about the other 3 life policies – that paying $36 per month does not mean she was aware of them.
4. From my understanding of the law – and I could be wrong here – the ‘allergic reaction’ proposition is not new evidence and so a new trial will not be granted.
5. His 000 call to police would be deemed deceptive by statement analysis (statement analysis.com).
The most important point to address Bob Moles saying Keogh would have been stupid to put himself as the beneficiary on the life insurance policies and then kill Anna is this: criminals are often stupid – that is why they get caught. If you lie a lot, as Keogh did, you can get complacent – after all – he hasn’t been caught yet.
Bob Moles is a great believer in Keogh and no doubt an interesting fellow with a fierce intellect. Looking at all the facts – not just one pathologists potential ‘error’ (that is supported by other pathologists) – I’d convict him and sleep well knowing he hadn’t got away with one more lie.

Apart from Ken and Emma’s concerns, a careful review of the case only has me wondering two things
What is the hold up with the new appeal
What is the hold up with finding him innocent and having him rightly released
Every day spent inside is another day with this injustice going on!!

Looking at various opinions posted here I thought it might be worth mentioning that both Manock and James stated to the Medical Board hearing that when they looked at a microscopic slide taken from the “bruise”, they saw there was actually no bruise.
It is a little more than just a “a little mistake” to present something in court, that plays a crucial part in the findings of that court, that you know to be completely unsupported by any scientific findings.
Our legal system is based on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Just the facts gentlemen, the facts, ALL the facts, and nothing but the facts
It’s not that hard
No amount of slinging mud at Henry’s character changes the fact that an injustice has been committed and should be rectified

I can sense your frustration: which is quite understandable if you are keeping an open mind to this matter.
Having travelled to whole journey of the efforts to obtain Henry Keogh a fair hearing; even the most ‘stoic’ are being tested.
From the day I first set the ‘ball in motion’ in 1998 by asking the police for access to the photograph negatives and prints from same: there has been a determined obstruction by the authorities.
This is the first time the Court has been able to be involved directly in the Keogh matter since the decisions of the previous appeals.
Let’s give them a go.

There is no doubt that those who do not want the truth to come out are fighting determinedly: but they really have no idea what is just around the corner from them.

Courts: as law stands in our country: are there as the ‘bastions of fairness’: lets give them a go.

Mr Sheehan,
You may not be aware that there is a photographic piece of forensic evidence that contradicts Mr Keogh’s version of events and has been available since the night of Ms Cheney’s death but the true significance of this evidence hasn’t been realised until mid last year.
Prof Henneberg’s expert opinion on Channel 7’s Today Tonight program in 2004 (http://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLDCF344C3D68A2614&v=nY5-ZNgZUvQ&index=29&feature=plpp_video ) concerning the facial swelling and the lividity as seen in the first color photo of the deceased (Ms Cheney) taken at the scene contradicts Mr Keogh’s statements at both of the trials (and to the police). If you read Prof Thomas’ 2004 affidavit you will note his observations of the police photographs taken at the scene in several paragraphs (markings on the upper left quadrant of the body; swelling at the left ear). I think that you can draw a conclusion from the observation of the two medical Professors (both of whom worked on behalf of Mr Keogh) that not only was Ms Cheney’s head slumped to her left but that her body was also slumped on her left side towards the bathroom window This is opposite of the slump to the right (i.e. it contradicts all of Keogh’s statements as to how Ms Cheney’s body was slumped).
Prof Henneberg didn’t use the word “left” on the program although his body movement and posture indicated that he meant that the head was slumped to the left. After seeing this program in May last year I had a brief email exchange with Prof Henneberg in which he stated that he did mean left. I read the transcripts of both trials almost 3 years ago and have realised that this forensic evidence is significant and is inconsistent with Mr Keogh’s statements. It appears that the producer of the Today Tonight program decided to air that particular story without first checking its consistency with the trial transcript. The relevant pages are: pg 278 T1; pg 847 T1; pg 740 T2.
Also, there is far more to science in this case than just the medical evidence that forensic pathologists seem to be overly concerned with. Forensic pathologists have concentrated their effort on the data that was derived either directly or indirectly from the body of the deceased. However, it was recognised over a decade ago by Prof Cordner and by Prof Thomas that pathology alone cannot solve this case. In other words, medical evidence in this case is insufficient to differentiate to a sufficient level of confidence between a homicidal and a non-homicidal death. Thus, I wouldn’t rely on the latest round of expert reports as much as you (and Bob Moles) seem to. Forensic pathologists have gone as far as their field of expertise could take them with the medical evidence they had to work with. As such, they have taken an educated guess by concluding that the death of Ms Cheney is most probably accidental on the grounds that some of the forensic evidence is inconsistent with the mechanism of forced drowning as proposed by Dr Manock.
Fortunately, applied physicists can go beyond the stage where the forensic pathologists have ended. A physicist recognises that the features of the physical environment in which the person dies are as important as the pathological features of death and bruising. Therefore, if one can find a simple geometrical relationship between the bruises and the bathtub surfaces (and its immediate surrounds) then one may be able to determine whether Ms Cheney’s death was accidental or by forced drowning.
I have gone through the excercise some time ago and have verified my predictions by a series of bathtub experiments. Since my preliminary report is under review I won’t discuss its main findings here other than to state that I have been able to predict that the most probable cause of the facial oedema is the gravity induced increase in the blood capillary hydrostatic pressure, which then led to the extravasation of fluid into the interstitial space. You may not be aware that the possible role of Hismanal in this case was dismissed in 2009 (see para 409 of the Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal report; available on Bob’s Networked Knowledge website).

In my previous post I indicated that my own scientific research on this case has concluded that the facial (and possibly laryngeal) swelling (oedema) was most probably caused by the gravity induced increase in the blood capillary hydrostatic pressure which then led to the extravasation of fluid into the interstitial space. I am not medically qualifed but all I needed to do in order to determine the most probable cause of the oedema was to first establish (on the basis of a simple geometrical analysis) the most probable position, orientation and the contortion of Ms Cheney’s body with respect to the bathtub during the moments of bruising and drowning. This was made possible only because I studied the features of the bathtub (and its immediate surrounds) as well as the distribution of the bruises. Forensic pathologists on the other hand didn’t look beyond the medical data and were thus at a significant disadvantage compared to the rigorous scientific approach I took (which also included experimentation in a bathtub of the identical shape and dimension as the one at the scene).

The key scientific observation I made about the distribution of bruises (which appears not to have been noticed by any of the 10 or so pathologists who contributed their expert opinion on this case) is this:
to the first approximation, the distribution of the bruises (a total of 14 bruises if we ignore the controversial mark on the medial side of the left calf) is highly symmetrical with respect to the vertical axis of the body. This symmetry is highly suggestive of a simple geometrical relationship between the body and the bathtub surfaces and objects that could have caused the bruises. Finding that unique geometrical relationship will then also reveal the manner of death as well as the cause of the facial oedema.

Aggie,
Of course the timing at which the various bruises occurred matters if you are a scientist! If all the bruises occurred at the same time then it places a severe restriction on the search space (all the possible geometrical relationships). If only two bruises occurred at the time of death and all others occurred well before that (or after death) then it would be futile to find a solution. If only one of the 14 bruises occurred at the time of death then one has no hope of determining anything useful! What other evidence is there that hasn’t been covered by 10+ pathologists whose work I have reviewed over the past 3 years?

I note that a significant proportion of people on this blog have given their speculative opinion on the life insurance policies on Ms Cheney’s life. As a physical (and perceptual) scientist who is primarilly interested in the scientific/medical aspects of this case (and in particular on using the scientific method to determine the most feasible and the most probable manner of Ms Cheney’s death) I deliberately chose not to make a speculative comment on the life insurance policies and the reasons for them being taken out in the first place. I just do not see any scientific value in speculating on the reasons why Mr Keogh chose to forge signatures on so many occassions for there is no way one can use objective science to estabish the most probable scientific fact on this issue.

What I would like to do is to find out from those who did offer their speculative opinion about the life insurance policies (and in particular Dr Bob Moles and Mr Robert Sheenan) is simply this:

On how many occassions did Mr Keogh forge Ms Cheney’s signature in connection to the 5 life insurance policies versus the number of times that Ms Cheney signed her own signature:

The following recent post about this case (on another blogsite, see http://smithforensic.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/henry-keogh-south-australia-guest-post.html?m=1) caught my attention:

“Given that all four eminent forensic experts on the appeal are agreed that the forensic evidence supports an accident scenario, and the forensic ‘expert’ at trial recanted on the factors relevant to the murder hypothesis – it is baffling to think how a prosecutor could present a case which could exclude ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ an accidental death scenario.”

That is certainly an interesting and a reasonable point of view taken by a legal academic (Dr Bob Moles) and possibly a view that most legal, medical and journalistic followers of this case would share, as well as the general public. But is that a view that a physical scientist would take if he/she was aware of the scientific and the medical aspects of this case (the autopsy report describing the bruising; the body chart showing the number and the distribution of the bruises; photographs of the lower legs showing the bruises on both legs; the expert medical opinions during and after the two previous trials; and the physical circumstances of Ms Cheney’s death in a small bathub that was approx 1/2 full of water, i.e. maximum of about 16-17 cm of water depth at the plug-end of the bathtub)?

Given that the eminent forensic experts on the appeal didn’t incorporate into their analysis and conclusion the physical data about the shape, size and the detailed features of the bathtub in which Ms Cheney died, it is baffling to think how they could, with any confidence, conclude on the basis of incomplete forensic data that the death was accidental? How can we rely on the opinion of eminent forensic (and non-forensic) pathologists who didn’t factor into the equation the features of the bathtub in which Ms Cheney died, given the significant number of reported bruises (and their rather odd distribution and grouping) and the fact that it is very difficult for a person of Ms Cheney’s size to accidentally drown in such a relatively small bathub that at most had 16 – 17 cm of water depth at the plug end?

Science demands more accuracy, rigour and reliability than what has been achieved in this case so far.

For example:

The grouping of 7 bruises on a straight line along the right shin is a rather odd occurrence that required (and still requires) detailed scientific analysis. However, these bruises haven’t received anywhere near as much attention as the single ‘bruise’ on the medial side of the lower left leg even though they constitute 50% of the total reported number of bruises! Prof Pounder (now Emeritus Prof) wrote in his second report in 2014:

“Bruises to the front of the right shin are typical of those which result from day to day living and there is no objective reason to suggest otherwise.”

I am astounded by the fact that an eminent and a very senior academic forensic pathologist can submit a report with such a statement without doing any objective scientific analysis of these bruises. One would have reasonably expected that at the very minimum the mentioned forensic pathologist (as well as all others who commented on this set of bruises) would have first attempted to exclude the possibility of these bruises being caused by the bathtub edge before offering other possibilities.

What if the features of these bruises (their size, shape and their relative spacings) can be matched to the cross-sectional profile of the longitudinal section of the bathtub edge? This would significantly alter the evidentiary landscape within which forensic pathologists may find geometrically related patterns of evidence with which to build a more reliable picture of how Ms Cheney died.

Whilst not advocating for the guilt or the innocence of the accused, I am of a firm view that before anyone can offer a sound scientific conclusion on the manner of Ms Cheney’s death, more forensic work is required. I have identified the bathtub features and their geometrical relationship to the bruises on the deceased’s right leg and the top of the head to be the critical missing link in the reports and opinions of the various pathologists (and other forensic experts) who were involved in this case to date.

I am ending this post with the following extract from paragraph 249 of the Dec 2014 report by the Full Court (based on the 2000 report by Dr James):

“I don’t think that the post-mortem findings by themselves prove homicide. In this regard I gather my views differ from those of Dr Manock. Most importantly I think that the post-mortem features are sufficiently suspicious that the case warrented [sic] further investigation by the police to clarify the circumstances of her death. I doubt that any qualified forensic pathologist would differ from this view and regard it as the most important issue in the pathology evidence.”

Henry Keogh has said that he was obliged to drag the body of Anna Cheney from the bath as he was unable to lift her out.

From my own modelling of the removal of a subject from a bath of the same type as Anna Cheney was said to have died in: I would concur with Henry Keogh.

I conducted the modelling in the same manner Henry Keogh has said he used: by gripping the subject from behind under the armpits with the arms wrapped around the chest of the subject.

As Anna Chey was positioned with her head at the opposite end of the bath to where Henry Keogh dragged her onto the bedroom floor he was obliged to rotate the body through one hundred and eighty degrees during the dragging actions.

The modelling showed that this required a complex set of actions that resulted in a complex movement of the legs of the subject.

As the subject was dragged up the wall of the bath I was obliged to start to rotate my body backwards about my right hip.

This action caused the buttocks and back of the subject to drag up the wall of the bath as I then started to move backwards.

Whilst this was happening the legs dragged forwards towards the end of the bath where the head was originally positioned and then started to twist towards the rear side of the bath.

Once the buttocks appeared over the rim of the bath the body tended to drag along the rim until the buttocks came over the side of the bath.

Whilst this was happening the lower legs were going through a complex set of movements that resulted in the right leg twisting to present the shin against the rim of the bath as the leg was being withdrawn from the bath.

The left leg was still predominantly within the bath.

As the body was drawn further along the length of the bath the right shin which
was twisted down dragged across the rim of the bath in a clunking manner.

I consider the clunking on the rim of the bath could possibly have caused a series of individual bruises along the right shin.

I would like to explain that originally I had given a full description of the removal sequences and then thought it too complex and modified the description.

I inadvertently left a reference to the left leg which is out of context.

When reading the previous post please omit the following line from the content.

“The left leg was predominantly in the bath.”

The description of the legs in the original post was to start at that line which I will now express further.

The left leg was predominantly in the bath.

As the body was further withdrawn from the bath the left leg straightened as the lower portion emerged over the rim of the bath.

The foot twisted down to the left which caused the lateral side of the leg from slightly below the knee to drag across the rim of the bath until the ankle bumped on the raised edge of the bath, the foot then falling over the edge as the leg pivoted about the hip.

The impact of the force of the falling leg with the floor was absorbed through the back of the heel of the foot.

The lower right leg was still in the bath at this time.

As the body was dragged further along and away from the bath the right lower leg twisted inwards causing the right shin to clunk across the rim of the bath with the right foot impacting the rim of the bath to then fall down as the leg pivoted about the hip.

The right foot hit the inside of the left foot on some of the occasions of the modelling.

It should be noted that Dr Manock the pathologist who conducted the autopsy,
in his final version of his report included, that bruising of the legs could not be attributed to the removal of the body from the bath.

It is very difficult for me to see how he could have come to such an adamant conclusion.

Dr Manock also said in trial evidence that there had been no photographs taken of the feet.
Dr Manock also said that he contributed concern over the appearance of the feet that was raised by police officers as early putrefaction.

It became evident to me in 1998 that photographs had been taken of the feet when a series of black and white photographs were flashed in front of me at the Forensic Science Centre.

In 1999 I achieved copies of the photographs which clearly suggest bruising.
When I was provided the prints it was only by agreement that I would not exhibit the prints to anybody other that two experts I had nominated.

Further Dr Manock never took into consideration that the body of Anna Cheney had been removed from the house by police officers carrying her by the legs.
This was never reported by police officers but came to my attention when in discussion with people in 1998 who were present at the scene of death and observed the manner by which the police removed the body from the house.

There is every possibility that these actions could have led to bruising on the lateral side of the left leg, where the leg had already been subjected to potential
injury whilst being removed from the bath.

1. Thank you for sharing with us the description of your modelling (a reenactment) work and the observations you made, particularly in relation to how the bruises on the deceased’s right shin may have been caused during the removal of her body from the bathtub.

2. The various manoeuvres that you did and observed with respect to the body of the other person depended very much on the initial condition:

whether the head was at the far side of the bathtub

or

whether the head was at the near side of the bathtub

because that dictated whether the torso is at the far side or the near side of the bathtub (both cannot be at the same side of a narrow bathtub for the face to be slumped forward and submerged).

You stated:

As Anna Chey was positioned with her head at the opposite end of the bath to where Henry Keogh dragged her onto the bedroom floor he was obliged to rotate the body through one hundred and eighty degrees during the dragging actions…”

It is quite incorrect to infer that according to Mr Keogh, the “head was at the opposite end of the bath to where .. “.

Below I copy the relevant statements of Mr Keogh. You can determine from these statements that he saw the head of the deceased at the nearer side of the bathtub. Thus your modelling work doesn’t accord with the position of the deceased’s head as stated by Mr Keogh before and during the first two trials.

It is the forensic evidence (the gravitational effect on bloodflow after death which left a sign of lividity on the left side of Ms Cheney’s face) that supports Prof Henneberg’s claim and my claim that the head must have been on the left side of the body (thus at the window side of the bathtub, i.e. the opposite side of the bathtub where Mr Keogh would have been standing whilst removing the body from the bathtub). I concluded in May 2014, on the basis of this forensic evidence (which wasn’t recognised before or during the first two trials) that the head of the deceased was at the far side of the bathtub, and that the body was also slanted towards the window wall such that the back of the body was at the nearer side of the bathtub.Therefore there would be no need to rotate the body because the back of the body is at the near side of the bathtub. All that is required is to simply push the body forward a bit and then put the arms underneath the armpits of the deceased, twist the body by 90 degrees so that it can be pulled out such that the back of the deceased is against the chest of the retriever. No need for a 180 degree rotation.

——————————

From page 278 First Trial (copy of the statement originally taken by the Police at the Holden Hill Police Station on 22nd March 1994, i.e. several days after the death):

“Anna was positioned on her RIGHT SIDE FACING FACING NORTH AT THE EASTERN END of the bath adjacent to the bathroom sink cabinet. I first noticed that HER FACE WAS COMPLETELY BELOW WATER IN THE BATH……. I cannot remember what position her legs were in. I just recall SHE WAS ON HER SIDE LOOKING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE FRONT DOOR”

[my emphasis]

From page 847 First Trial:

“SHE WAS IN THE BATH AND JUST ABOUT HER WHOLE FACE WAS UNDER THE WATER…… SHE WAS BASICALLY LYING ON HER RIGHT SIDE AND – THREE-QUARTERS TO FOUR FIFTHS ON HER RIGHT SIDE. Her left shoulder was back against the side of the bath. AND HER HEAD WOULD HAVE BEEN SORT OF FALLING DOWN THAT WAY TO THE RIGHT”

[my emphasis]

From page 740 Second Trial:

“She was LYING PREDOMINANTLY ON HER RIGHT SIDE. Her left shoulder would have been back against the side of the bath. Her face was under the water.

[my emphasis]

Thus: your modellling, whilst quite detailed, is incorrect in the sense that Ms Cheney’s head, according to Mr Keogh’s statements 20 years ago, was at the nearer side of the bathtub.

3. I will address the point about the bruises on the right shin by stating that in the retrieval re-enactment you described, as the right shin was dragged forwards across the bathtub edge then the knee would be also pointing forwards (i.e. in the direction away from the window wall).

Based on my analysis of the cross-sectional profile of the longitudinal section of the bathtub edge, combined with my analysis of the bruises, I concluded that the knee was pointing in the opposite direction (i.e. towards the window wall). Thus you will need to do a detailed analysis rather than just modelling (or re-enacting) the physical mechanics of body retrieval from a bathtub and noting the various body manoeuvres.

1. Other than the single ‘bruise’ on the medial side of the lower left leg (which was found to be at least a few days old because the sample contained deposits of a chemical substance called Hemosiderin) all other bruises are considered to be bruises.

2. The two oval shaped bruises at the back of neck are still contentious regarding their cause:

Prof Vernon-Roberts believes that they could have been caused at or near the time of death. Prof Pounder gave a very detailed explanation to support his view that these two bruises were produced by the autopsy procedure. Dr Lynch didn’t disagree with Prof Pounder’s explanation but preferred a view that these bruises were caused at or near the time of death.

3. Lateral lower leg bruises: could have been caused anytime from 24 hours before death up to and near the time of death.

4. Right leg shin bruises: same as for the left lateral leg.

5. Top of head bruising: the general consensus amongst the medical experts on the appeal is that this bruising was caused at the time of death by the head striking the bathtub during a fall.

6. Unfortunately, the science of estimating the age of bruises is notorious and isn’t as precise as we wish it to be.

7. The extent of bruising isn’t dependant only on the force of impact by a blunt object (or the pressure being applied by a grip) but on a number of other factors. One of those factors is the blood pressure. Blood pressure determines the pressure with which the blood is forced out of the crushed capillaries and vessels into the interstitial space. When the heart ceases to function, the blood pressure drops significantly. That is why it isn’t easy to bruise the leg of a dead person (requires significantly stronger impact by a blunt object or a significantly stronger grip than when the person is alive).

8. What if there exists a UNIQUE physical scenario during which all the above mentioned bruises could be inflicted SIMULTANEOUSLY, such that that scenario also explains why Ms Cheney’s face was swollen and why that swelling was significantly more pronounced on one side of her face (the left side)?

9. Since Emeritus Prof Derrick Pounder appears to be the most eminent and the most senior forensic pathologist at the appeal last year (and was hired by the defence team), it is appropriate that I end this post by including a section of his second report:

“Observation and recording of the bruises which form the basis of the allegation of a homicidal assault is both deficient and inaccurate. Two bruises to the back of the head are the result of the autopsy dissection and were not produced in life. There is only one injury to the head and that injury is to the front of the head and not towards the back as was presented at trial. The bruise to the front of the scalp is readily explicable by a forwards unprotected fall and not easily reconcilable with the homicidal scenario advanced at trial which envisaged the deceased on her back in the bath. The erroneous opinion was proffered that the head injury could not have caused unconsciousness and by inference that a fall with resultant head injury could not account for a death by drowning. Bruises to the front of the right shin are typical of those which result from day to day living and there is no objective reason to suggest otherwise. There is no objective evidence, other than the view of the autopsy pathologist, that a lesion to the inner left leg was a bruise and there is compelling microscopic and photographic evidence that it was not a bruise. It was this lesion which was alleged to be a bruise representing the thumb mark of a hand grip. Three bruises to the outer aspect of the left leg, even if regarded as ‘fresh’ or ‘recent’, could have been produced separately at any time within a few days of death as the result of day to day living. The opinion that the bruising to the left leg represents a hand grip is a subjective speculation, a personal hunch, and is so poorly founded on fact that, on the now available evidence, it could not withstand critical analysis.”

At the scene of death of Anna Cheney: a number of police officers inspected her body for signs of injury.

None reported seeing any signs of injury other than what was termed a shaving mishap on the shin of the right leg.

Only the police officers would know how detailed their inspection of the body was.

But it would seem that if there had been any bruising of the right shin it would have been included in the officers reports.

Especially the reports made by the two detectives who assumed the further investigation of the death Monday morning following the autopsy.

The reports that the two detectives prepared following advice that there was a single bruise found on the top of the head at the autopsy: show a great degree of scepticism about further bruising that was said to have been discovered on the legs during the Monday.

There is reporting by others which indicates that bruising that was not observed over the course of the weekend became apparent on the legs during Monday.

In separate reports, there was mention of bruising of the feet by police officers on the Wednesday of the first week following the death.

There was no report by anybody including Dr Manock of bruising observed on the medial side of the left leg.

This is understandable considering that the mark which was not identified by Dr Manock until during evidence in the second trial: does not support the appearance of bruising: nor does the histology that it has been said was removed from this location: which there is no photographic record of.

When I first made contact with Henry Keogh in February 1998 I asked him for a description of the condition he found Anna Cheney in.

Henry Keogh provided me a description and a sketch showing the position he had found Anna Cheney in the bath.

The description and the sketch depicted Anna Cheney with her back towards the plug end of the bath which is the eastern end which I confirmed when I made an inspection of the bath at 13 Homes Ave.
Anna was shown slumped towards the right which is the near side of the bath which had her head facing west on the North side of the bath: other than the degree her head was slumped downwards towards the bottom of the bath with her face below the surface of the water.

This meant Henry Keogh was obliged to squeeze himself against a vanity unit immediately adjacent to the bath mounted on the eastern wall on the northern side of the bath to be able to put his arms under the armpits so he could grip Anna Cheney from the back.

The bath was quite small: the width of the top opening of the bath 600mm: the length of the top opening 1400mm.

Henry Keogh has explained that before he carried out the action of getting behind Anna Cheney, he had attempted to move her to enable him to remove the plug to release the water from the bath.
While carrying out these actions Henry Keogh has said that he had great difficulty in trying to keep Anna Cheneys face out to the water as the head was flopping around.

I have on this site, starting from 23rd Feb this year, covered several scientific aspects of this case in a manner than can be readily understood by non-scientists. One thing that I intentionally left out (for professional reasons) are the details of my complete geometrical analysis.

Before I leave this site, I suggest that you all re-read my various posts over a period of time and also make time to watch the youtube copy of the Ch 7 Today Tonight (Adelaide) program I referred to in my first post. The link is:

The ‘bruising’ on the leg must have occurred prior to death due to the nature of just what a bruise is ie small burst veins and coagulated blood.

When a person is either throttled around the neck or squeezed around the ankle and especially if the pressure is applied until death as is strangulation, imprints that are made, remain. These imprints are not bruises. The imprints take the form of indentations and are white because the squeeze/pressure drives blood from the area.

More analysis is required to determine if there were bruises or squeeze/pressure marks applied to Anna Cheney.

Did Anna die as a result of choking on vomit?
Is it likely that Anna would have vomited if Keogh had attempted to drown her?
Surely there would have been traces of vomit in the bath water?

Did Anna have to be sitting on the plug to make the ankle bruise fit ie thumb to inside of leg? Sitting in the bath in this manner seems unlikely and is it simply placing Anna in the bath to suit the bruise? As said above the bruises in question possibly had nothing to do with the drowning.

If Anna choked on vomit then she must have expelled food and not liquid (wine). Information required on this point.

Brian
It is a ‘odd’ case.
Officially it is a planned murder for insurance claim, method : drowning in a bath tub.

problems with that hypothesis( well at least some of them):

The victim rarely took baths, did not like it, and was not the kind to be easily lead. ‘ Drowning her in the bath’ seems a unlikely plan, if you were planning her ‘ accidental ‘death, no?

Descriptions of Anna after death suggest that anaphylactic shock might have been a cause. But pathology did not examine that possibility at all.

Pathology did not even definitely establish that the cause of death was : her lungs were full of water I.e. she drowned( in bath water).

And ( may me just me) late on the afternoon a few hours before her death , Anna was seen walking her dog and from memory that dog was ‘ a bit of a handful’, yet in all of the reports, that dog ,somehow, completely disappeared. .

Henry Keogh has finally been released from a very long incarceration for a “murder” which is highly likely did not happen.
But Anna Jane Cheney most definitely died from some cause.
Surely the ‘young woman’s’ death deserves a much more thorough investigation, for respect of her memory.

I have started a Facebook page [Anna – memory] in which it is hoped people will contribute.

Having been the initiating ‘force’ in 1997 to put actions into place and engage interested and qualified people to give consideration and reconsideration to the circumstances of Anna’s death I do not intend to let it end without every ‘proper’ effort to revisit the tragic death.

Congratulations for taking an interest in the cause of Ms Cheney’s death and for stating “Surely the ‘young woman’s’ death deserves a much more thorough investigation, for respect of her memory.”

The death of Ms Anna Jane Cheney was reviewed by an independent (non-forensic) scientist over a three year period (2012-2014). A report on the findings was written and emailed to the DPP, Dr Matthew Lynch (forensic pathologist) and to the family of the deceased in January 2015. The police was also informed. Dr Collins and Prof Henneberg (University of Adelaide) were also informed of the main findings. The producer of Today Tonight (Mr Graham Archer) was also informed. Prof Anthony Thomas was also informed via email. Part of my findings appears on this blog. I won’t go into any further details.

Dear Dr Lozo
I am aware that you contacted the various people you listed.
Whilst I do not agree with much of what you have proposed: I do not believe that should exclude further cooperative considerations: but I would suggest to you that many of the people have had much more experience in their individual fields, and have had a much more informed basis for their conclusions.
In my mind, though: this should not exclude a cooperative effort to continue to try and establish the cause of Anna’s death.

Firstly the photographs taken at the scene of death were far from an appropriate forensic standard.

My discussion with leading forensic pathologists, appears to leave open the possibility that if blood vessels are damaged in the immediate postmortem period, that particularly, if the damage is to the lower portion of the body such as lower legs there could possibly be evidence of faint post-mortem “bruising” due to the pooling of blood by gravity to the lower parts of the body.

The said bruising of Anna’s left leg was very faint, which is the leg that it is claimed Anna was gripped by.
The mark on the medial side of the left leg does not support there being a bruise at all, it photographed in such a manner so as to suggest a bruise, but even then very unconvincing.

Anna was removed from the bath and ensuite by Henry Keogh dragging her over the rim of the bath and in that process he rotated the body through one hundred and eighty degrees: to face Anna in the opposite direction to what she was in the bath: on the bedroom floor.

Anna’s feet showed distinct bruising.

You raise the point of the “blanched effect” which can result from retained local pressure on the skin if maintained up to and after death.
There is distinct “blanched effect” evident on the front of Anna’s neck: which looks to reflect a pattern that occurred whilst she was in the bath with her head slumped downwards and to the right.

The photos the police took at the scene of death, also appear to show distinct lividity.
There is a pattern evident which appears to reflect the slumped position Henry Keogh described he found Anna in.
More lividity reflects the pattern of towels and the bedroom and bathroom floors, where parts of Anna’s body were in contact.

A diagram illustrating the slumped pattern can be seen on the facebook page:
Anna -memory

A copy can be emailed if required.

Anna’s airway was totally blocked according to the ambulance officers and the forensic pathologist report.

There were a few flecks of some substance in the bath reported by those at the scene: there is very little evident in the photographs.
When the ambulance officers tried suction they were unable to free the airway of obstruction and reported that they were only able to remove fluid: which on the basis of the report of the airway blockage: must have been coming from the esophagus passage and stomach.
When defibrillation was performed fluid and stomach content [mostly potato] erupted out over the carpet of the bathroom.

Anyone who has worked in a field of science for long enough as I have is well aware that experts in one specialised field of work can be blinded from noticing some data because of that profession’s standard approach to problem solving.

As a physical and a perceptual scientist who specialised in the field of visual perception and pattern recognition, I combined the data from the body of the deceased with the data I measured from an identical bathtub and was thus able to derive something different altogether. I believe that the DPP (and the Police) would have sought expert opinion from at least one forensic pathologist (and probably conducted bathtub experiments and a re-enactment).

Thus your response to me is quite naive.

Given the nature of your past involvement since 1997, and the nature of your comments on this blog, I am curious about your current motivation. I wasn’t impressed with your response to the deceased’s brother either.

LIVIDITY ON THE DECEASED’S FACE AND THE DIRECTION OF SLUMP: Left or Right?

This is to be read in conjunction with two of my earlier comments on this blog (23 Feb 2015 and 25 March 2015).

Prof Maciej Henneberg (of The University of Adelaide) appeared on Channel 7’s Today Tonight program in 2004 to give expert opinion (see http://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLDCF344C3D68A2614&v=nY5-ZNgZUvQ&index=29&feature=plpp_video) concerning the facial swelling and the lividity as seen in the first colour photo of the deceased (Ms Cheney) taken at the scene.

I had a brief email exchange with Prof Henneberg in May 2014 on the physics of blood flow, facial swelling and the facial lividity. Below is a copy of part of that email exchange from 27th May 2014 concerning his expert opinion on what the lividity on the deceased’s face implied as to how her head was slumped (left or right):

Email from Dr Peter Lozo to Prof Maciej Henneberg on 27th May 2014:

“Thank you for your explanation Prof Henneberg. One thing that we both agree on is that the swelling was more pronounced on the left of Ms Cheney’s face and that the lividity that can be seen on her face implies that her head would have been slumped to the left rather than to the right (this is also what you also indicated via your body movement and posture on the Today Tonight program in 2004). This contradicts Mr Keogh’s statement to the police and his statement at both of the trials (he stated that her body was slumped to the right approximately 3/4 to 4/5, with her face facing the door).

Cheers,
Peter”

Reply from Prof Maciej Henneberg to Dr Peter Lozo on 27th May 2014:

“Thanks Peter

I agree with you on the slump to the left rather than to the right – no problem there. Being ambidextrous I find it very difficult not to confuse right with left in many situations and if cross-examined in court would have difficulty stating whether something was directed to the right or to the left without consulting my notes. This is why I indicated the side with my body movements rather than in words. Of course, it can not mean that others, do the same.
Cheers
Maciej
“

The rest of the readers of this blog (many of whom aren’t commenting, I know a few) don’t have the relevant information. So my post isn’t aimed at you specifically but the general public who were misled by the above mentioned 2004 Today Tonight program when Mr Archer said the following after Prof Henneberg’s indicated the slump to the left:

“And this closely fits the description Keogh gave when he found his fiancee slumped in the bath and contradicts the prosecution case..”

It is rather interesting that neither you nor Dr Bob Moles chose to write about the above error on the 2004 Today Tonight program by Mr Archer (Dr Moles was informed by me in late 2015). But now you are writing about the “missing” dog, about the left ear stud, and about heaps of other non-scientific nonsense.

Why did you draw a sketch of the body slumped on the right and the legs in the bathtub? How do you know where the legs were? Keogh stated that he didn’t remember where the legs were because he paid attention to the upper torso (the head, the shoulders, etc)!

Peter, I noted you did not address it to anyone specifically.
I noted the error in the, 2004 program, and spoke to Maciej about his account: he gave me the same answer as you received.
Personally, I think for you to hang so much on a mistake: simply made under the circumstances of a television interview filming:
is rather trite.
Maciej admitted to you his mistake, and I know for certain that he was well aware of the circumstances as I had discussed it with him numerous times.
I also know that those that keep citing their ‘scientific standing’ often get lost in that certainty of themselves.

Peter, to your last question.
Yes, Henry Keogh also told me that about the legs when I first contacted him in 1998.
Either the legs were in the bath or they were not.
The pattern of lividity seems to suggest they were in the bath.
That is all the diagram is meant to represent: that possibility.

Peter, can I suggest to you that you positions yourself in a bath and slump your torso and head to the right and note which way your legs align with your torso and which side of the bath they tend to favour.

I have made it very clear in all I have presented: Henry Keogh told me when I asked him in 1998: Anna Cheney when he found her in the bath was slumped to the right: also read the trial transcript where he stated the same.
Anna’s mother contradicted this account by saying Henry Keogh had told her Anna was lying on her back.

Peter, I have said absolutely nothing about a missing dog: how did you come to such an understanding?
It might not seem of “scientific value to you”, that Anna had two ear studs jabbed in the concha of her left ear: but it certainly raises some questions in my mind: who did it and why?

Leigh Hi It is ages since I read the documents; From memory it seemed to me that once they had established that Keogh had a obvious plausible motive (and was a bit ‘shifty’) they quickly lost interest in testing for the possibility that Anna died of something that had nothing to do with Henry.
And again from memory, they did not keep the sort of tissue samples and related evidence etc that would be needed to reexamine the cause of death.

1. Prof Henneberg DID NOT make an error nor did he indicate to me that he made an error. It is clear from the video clip and from his email to me that he meant that the slump of the head was to the LEFT.

2. I looked at the 3D model of the face that was shown on the mentioned Today Tonight program and immediately concluded that the head was slumped to the LEFT even before I saw what Prof Henneberg indicated.

3. Prof Henneberg and I are thus in perfect agreement that the FACIAL LIVIDITY INDICATES THAT THE HEAD OF THE DECEASED WAS SLUMPED TO HER LEFT RATHER THAN TO HER RIGHT!

4. Thus, the forensic evidence derived from a police colour photograph of the deceased taken shortly after her death contradicts Keogh’s Statutory Declaration (and his court statements) as to how the deceased body’s was slumped.

5. Therefore, if you were objective about this case then you would include this forensic evidence in your writings about the case, as well as have another sketch which shows the body slumped to the left. Let the public decide which of the two versions they wish to believe. As it currently stands, you come across as an advocate for Keogh rather than an advocate for the scientific truth behind Anna’s death.

6. Who made the error on the mentioned Today Tonight program? Mr Graham Archer made a very serious error because he misinterpreted the implication of Prof Henneberg’s expert opinion regarding what the lividity implied about the direction of the slump of the deceased’s head. My guess is that Mr Archer didn’t bother to cross-check with Keogh’s Statutory Declaration. Therefore, the Today Tonight misled the public about the significant piece of forensic photographic evidence that contradicted Keogh’s version of events.

1. Given that I am an applied physicist it ought to have been reasonably obvious to you that I wouldn’t have written and submitted a scientific report to the relevant authority without doing both the analytical and the experimental work.

2. I conducted an extensive series of bathtub experiments in mid 2014 after a two year (2012 – 2013) research on an ad hoc basis. I initially got interested after seeing the 2011 60 Minutes program on the case. I read virtually everything that was available publicly after I got the trial transcripts from Dr Moles in Feb 2012. I also saw all the youtube videos of the relevant TV programs. I also read a lot of medical text so that I could understand not only the autopsy report but also the opinions of the various forensic pathologists (including that of Prof Green who appeared on behalf of Dr Manock in 2009 during the Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal hearing).

3. Following a rather extensive research and study (and the analytical work concerning the geometry of the problem) I had a small team of PhD qualified scientists conduct a series of drowning scenarios in May 2014 to compare against the results of my initial analytical work. The subject was the same height as the deceased. The bathtub was identical to the one at the scene of death. Being mainly physicists, we also measured various forces involved. A test was also done of my hypothesis of what caused the facial (and possibly the laryngeal) oedema (swelling). I did have a person lie in the bathtub with water at different depth levels (13 cm to 17 cm at the plug end) to see at what minimum angle of tilt both the head and the body needed to be so that the nose and the mouth was just submerged.

4. I did get into the bathtub myself many times to test various things (slumped to the right; slumped to the left). I noticed that often my hand would get trapped underneath the upper outer thigh of my leg. That gave me a clue as to how her legs might have been positioned. If I believe in the forensic evidence (that the head was slumped to the left) and if the mouth and nose were below the waterline then the body must have been tilted quite a lot towards the window. This gave me the clue that the mark on the upper outer left thigh was most probably an impression from the deceased’s engagement ring.

5. Thus, considerable amount of experimental work was conducted as part of my investigation into Ms Cheney’s death.

6. Mrs Cheney asked Keogh in what position were Anna’s legs. He stated that he didn’t notice because he was paying attention to Anna’s head.

7. As for the “missing” dog. I apologise for my error. It was the person before you (Paul Walker) who wrote about the “missing” dog.

1. During my research I saw a video footage of the bathroom in which Ms Cheney died.

2. It can be noted that the first view one gets of the bathtub when standing at the doorway (from the corridor from which Mr Keogh entered the bathroom) is the shallower end – where Ms Cheney’s legs would have been if her head was at the plug-end. It can also be noted that the bathroom vanity cupboard obstructs the view of the plug end of the bathtub. Thus one needs to step into the bathroom to get a view of the plug end of the bathtub.

3. If the shallower end of the bathtub is the first to be seen as one enters the bathroom from the corridor then it can be assumed that the first part of Ms Cheney’s body that Mr Keogh would have seen (given that the light was on and the door was open some 18 inches) were Ms Cheney’s legs (even if they were curled up in the bathtub) rather than her head. However, Mr Keogh stated that he couldn’t remember the position of Ms Cheney’s legs (see page 278 First Trial). I find this rather odd given that he was searching for her and that the light in the bathroom was on.

4. I leave it to you and the other readers to decide on this for yourself. The relevant video appears at time period 03:50 – 03:55 in the previously mentioned 2004 Today Tonight program:

1. On 26th August 2015, Mr Shaun Fewster (court reporter for the Advertiser) wrote an article titled “SA court told Henry Keogh’s third trial, for the murder of Anna-Jane Cheney, is doomed to fail”. See

Reasons for Decision of his Honour Judge Clayton, Member Dr G West, Member Dr R Henning and Member Ms V Swan

23 December 2009

“After the Tribunal had reserved its decision, Mr Borick QC, who made an application to make submissions on behalf of Mr Keogh, told the tribunal that Professor Thomas had noticed in a matter of reference to Hismanal. That drug is associated with sudden death from Q – T prolongation and was withdrawn because of the risk. Itvwas rare and there is no evidence Hismanal was used by the deceased even though it had been prescribed two years earlier. The reference in the medical notes was made anout two years prior to Ms Cheney’s death. No evidence of the drug was found in the home of Ms Cheney. The Tribunal does not regard the reference in the notes to Hismanal as being of any consequence.”

2. It is thus HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Hismanal caused the facial and the laryngeal oedema (swelling). It is therefore HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Hismanal medication caused Ms Cheney’s death.

I have previously provided an alternate explanation for the facial (and possibly the laryngeal) oedema.

3. I will in future provide a comparative analysis of the ‘medical approach’ that was undertaken by a Professor of Medicine at Flinders University (Prof A. Thomas) versus a ‘scientific approach’ that was undertaken by an Applied Physicist (Dr P. Lozo) in determining the most likely cause of the facial (and the laryngeal) swelling.

Suffice it to say, my approach started with the analysis of the 7 bruises on the deceased right shin. Prof Thomas’ analysis started with the observation of facial swelling in 2004 (as was seen by him in a resolution enhanced section of the police colour photograph of the deceased’s body taken shortly after her death) and the statements of the ambulance officers, combined with his perusal of Ms Cheney’s medical records. We will see in the near future how the two approaches ended in two very different conclusions as to the most likely cause of the mentioned swelling.

Peter
There are two possible causes for the florid appearance of Anna’s face, neck, and upper thorax [chest].
(1) Flushing: which is very prevalent in the instance of an anaphylactic reaction: such as the swelling of Anna’s face, neck and ear suggest.
(2) Lividity: the movement of blood in a deceased person by gravity to the lowest point of the body.
Both of these processes occur within the vessels of the blood circulation system of the body.
Flushing occurs antemortem.
Lividity postmortem.

There is a photograph taken at the scene of death by a police officer which is labelled Round sticker (4).
The photograph shows the body of Anna Cheney lying on her back with the body uncovered.
It is what is evident in this photograph that I have formed the opinion of the pattern of lividity I have detailed in the diagram which you take exception to.

You can observe on the diagram: that it is dated June 2004.
The Today Tonight programme you refer to: was on 12 July 2004.

When I first brought forward to Professor Henneberg in June 2004 my considerations of flushing and lividity evident in the photographs taken at the scene of death I presented to him the diagram showing the lividity.
We discussed this at length: as well as the facial and neck appearance [which had also been the subject of many discussions previously].

There is only one photograph in those made available by the prosecution [although it was never exhibited to the jury in either trial] that reveals the neck and front torso.

My understanding from the meeting with Professor Henneberg was that he would then take the considerations we had discussed to Graham Archer for possible inclusion in a further Today Tonight program, in respect, to the investigation of the death of Anna Cheney.

At this time, I had ceased direct contact with Graham Archer.

I was surprised and disappointed as to how the considerations were presented in the program you refer to.
Professor Henneberg when I contacted him agreed that the presentation did not convey the complete consideration that we had discussed: but did reveal that the head was tilted [slumped to the left].
Professor Henneberg explained [which I well understood], the difficulty of describing the complete condition without the use of the photograph evidence and even then within the time restraints of a half hour program would be difficult to relay to the viewer.
I consider this to have been an ‘error’, to have not at least indicated in the program that there were other factors at play.

Perhaps erroneously, my understanding is that the above explanation was discussed with you by Professor Henneberg during your contacts with him in the 2014 period.
If that was not the case, please accept my apology for any misunderstanding.
Professor Henneberg is currently overseas at the moment so I have not been able to discuss it with him further.

Nonetheless, the further evidence that was not revealed: strongly suggests that the head was tilted to the left: so on that point, we are all in agreement.

How the head was tilted to the left is where we have a different opinion.

The lividity evident in the police photographs taken at the scene of death, strongly suggests: the body was slumped to the right, with the legs twisted to the right.
As best I could, I have described this condition in the diagram I provided Professor Henneberg in June of, 2004.
You should note, that I made no reference to the head, face, and neck in the diagram as its purpose was not to describe such observations.

The photograph round, (4) I refer to: shows a very distinct blanched pattern on the front of the neck.
The pattern is extensive from under where the jaw and neck meet [but there is no clear definition of this junction due to the amount of swelling of the neck] down the complete length of the neck to the upper thorax.
The left border [as you view the neck from the front] is straight and a small distance to the left of the vertical centre line of the neck.
The right border is a much greater distance from the centre line of the neck and slopes outwards as it goes higher up the neck.
Included in the blanched pattern is a deeper impression, which appears to have been caused by the underside of the chin or the fold of the neck, to cause a chain necklace that Anna was wearing to be forced into the skin of the neck. [This pattern revealed by the necklace taking up a new position when the body was moved around.]

The pattern on the neck referred to definitely suggests that Anna’s head was tilted to the left.

There is the possibility that the reason the head tilted to the left was caused by the right side [actual] being in contact with the inside of the nearside of the bath or even the corner of the near side wall and the end wall of the bath: or the pressure was caused by the right shoulder [actual] bearing against the right side [actual] of the face forcing the head to the left.
There is a blanched patch on the upper surface of the right shoulder which could reflect contact between the shoulder and the side of the face.

There is no doubt that lividity results from the death of a person.
It does not always become immediately apparent.
Gravity is required to provide [to force] the blood through the blood vessels which at the surface of the skin can be very small in diameter.
If blood vessels are dilated by some phenomenon it is possible that the blood may passage to the lowest point available faster after death.
Heat can cause such dilation: the very reason skin can appear red if it is heated, by any medium.
Anna was reportedly in a hot bath at the time of her death.
It is highly likely the back of the trunk of the body was in hot water and the right arm also, if the body, slumped to the right.
The left arm in the photograph does not appear to be anywhere near as florid as the right arm and may not have been in the water.
The legs appear to have been twisted to the right [actual] and were more than likely submerged in the hot bath water.
The lividity on the legs strongly indicates this likelihood.

There could well be a combination of flushing and lividity involved in the florid appearance of the face and neck.
It appears to me though from other research: and the availability of a photograph I have viewed of a person who died here in South Australia from a ‘declared’ anaphylactic event: that the florid appearance of the face and neck evident in photograph round, (4) was more the result of flushing during an anaphylactic event.

The appearance of the face in the photograph I viewed is very much the same as in the photograph taken of Anna Cheney and appears typical to photographs of other people who were known to have had an anaphylactic event.

The swelling of the face of the person who died in South Australia is markedly similar to that showing in the photograph of Anna.
Especially the swelling around the eyebrows and the eye sockets, the underside of the nose and the lips, the cheeks, the ear, the neck.
The florid appearance in this instance is intense and blanched locations are evident.
The blanched locations in this instance appear to have been caused by objects that the person was in contact with, one on the neck and a number on the upper thorax and shoulder.
There can be no confusion at all in this instance that the florid appearance was a result of flushing caused by an anaphylactic reaction.

1. Your very last sentence is ill-informed and is naive. This is the sentence I am referring to:

“There can be no confusion at all in this instance that the florid appearance was a result of flushing caused by an anaphylactic reaction.”

Seriously Robert, who do you think you are you kidding?

It is not possible to deduce from a photograph of the face whether the swelling was induced chemically (via a reaction to a drug or some other substance) or whether it was induced by an increase in capillary hydrostatic pressure, or whether it is related to a cardiac failure!

If the medical experts didn’t make such a strong view on this what qualifies you to take such a strong view that the swelling was caused by an anaphylactic reaction given that you don’t have any tertiary education nor any professional training nor any professional work experience in medicine or science? As far as I can tell, you have high school education and have worked as a Private Investigator (and probably still do, as well as having written one book). I assume you that you probably attended some TAFE level courses related to the nature of your work as a Private Investigator or an author.

I suggest that you stick to the opinion of the medical experts or scientists rather than giving your own opinion.

Here is an opinion of a medical specialist (Dr Gillis, who submitted a report in 2004 to Mr Kourakis QC, as he was known then). Dr Gillis’ expert opinion is summarised in:

“The applicant also relies on a report from a Dr Gillis, a specialist immunologist to the effect that the post-mortem photographs showed signs that the deceased may have experienced anaphylaxis. Dr Gillis observed swelling around the mouth which in his opinion could be a sign of analphylaxis but it might also be associated with generalised swelling secondary to cardiac failure and a number of other causes. Whilst Dr Gillis said there was no evidence of which he was aware to support a finding that anaphylaxis was a cause of death, equally, he was of the view that there was no evidence to support a finding that anaphylaxis was not the cause of death. The applicant maintains that the report of Dr Gillis is inconsistent with a drowning diagnosis. The report was obtained by the then Solicitor-General in 2004 but was not released to the applicant until 2013. There is reference in general practitioner notes for the deceased (available at the trial) to the deceased having been prescribed the drug Hismanal for a period of some (uncertain) time before death. A known unusual complication from taking Hismanal is anaphylaxis. Furthermore, the drug was apparently taken off the market in the late 1990s because of concerns that it might, in some persons, contribute to an acute cardiac event. The applicant maintains that whether or not this evidence is to be characterised as “fresh” the potential for Hismanal to have played a role in causing the death needs to be considered in a new light now that the grip theory has been discredited and undermined.”

Note the sentence:

“Dr Gillis observed swelling around the mouth which in his opinion could be a sign of analphylaxis but it might also be associated with generalised swelling secondary to cardiac failure and a number of other causes.”

Thus, it is not possible to conclude from the observation of the photograph of the face what caused the swelling.

2. It took me two years of hard scientific work to determine to a high degree of certainty the geometrical relationship between the bruises and the bathtub. This then gave me the position and the orientation of the body with respect to the bathtub. If was only then that I very quickly understood that it was the gravity induced increase in the blood capillary hydrostatic pressure that caused the swelling (the face was in water but it was below the level of the heart; this enabled gravity to increase the volume of blood in the facial and the throat region, thus increasing the blood capillary hydrostatic pressure which then caused leakage of fluid (mainly water) from the capillaries into the interstitial space, and thus caused the swelling). Warm water and alcohol in Ms Cheney’s system helped gravity to do its job!

Scientific method of investigation wins the day rather than the guesswork by medical experts!

The instance I quoted was subject to a Coroners Inquest before Coroner Wayne Cromwell Chivell, in December 2003 and January 2004.

“I, the said Coroner, find that, ——- died at the Royal Adelaide Hospital —-on the 30th January 2001 as a result of an anaphylactic reaction due to multiple bee stings.”

The autopsy was performed by Dr R A James.
1.14 Cause of death.
A post-mortem examination of Mr — body was performed by Dr R A James >>>”
“1.15 >>> he also noted ‘obvious oedema (swelling) of the glottic inlet’ and mild oedema of the lungs.
1.16 An analysis of Mr — blood serum disclosed that he was allergic to bee venom. Further testing at the Hunter Immunology Unit at the Royal Newcastle Hospital disclosed that the serum had a tryptase level greater than 2000 ug/l (a normal reading is less than 13.5).
1.17 Dr James commented:
‘The grossly high tryptase of >2000 indicates an overwhelming histamine response with anaphylaxis to the multiple bee stings. ——- The serology tests and the oedema of his larynx leave no doubt of the mechanism of his death.’
1.18 I accept Dr James’ conclusions and find that — Mr — died as a result of anaphylactic reaction due to multiple bee stings.

Simply all I have said is that a comparison of the appearance in a photograph of the person described in the excerpts from the Coroners Inquest into that person’s cause of death, bore marked similarity to the appearance of Anna Cheney at the scene of her death.

Anna Cheney’s death was not investigated by a Coroner’s inquest instead immediately became a police investigation.

The Forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy of Anna Cheney did not make any inquiry into the possibility of the cause of her death as anaphylaxis.
The Coroner’s and the FSC officers advised me in (1998/99) that the pathologist did not retain blood plasma or serum.
The Coroner’s and the FSC advised me in (1998/99) that no tests were carried out to detect the possibility of anaphylaxis.

Dr Gillis in 1998/9 told me he considered the appearance of Anna Cheney in the photographs taken at the scene of death certainly showed swelling of the face and ear and that the swelling and florid appearance of the face could be associated with an anaphylactic event.
Dr Gillis also explained [as have other medical people consulted] that swelling of the face could result from death by a heart attack or other causes: to which I answered that the pathologists report did not appear to have reference to the analysis of a heart attack.
Dr Gillis in 1998/9 told me most definitely that locations he noted on the left leg were not bruises but were oedema: to which I asked him if that was something that would happen in the event of a heart attack or as a part of anaphylaxis.
Dr Gillis in 1998/9 told me he could not explain the very rapid decrease in the swelling of Anna’s face that is evident in one of the photographs.
Dr Gillis agreed in my opinion that the pathologist should have observed such a change of appearance in the photographs and made appropriate inquiry.
Dr Gillis found it very difficult to understand how such a difference in appearance could occur in the short time of a series of photographs at a scene of death where police were present.

Dr Gillis then in 1999 told me he could be of no further assistance to me because he feared for his job.

1. I will stick to the opinions (written or given verbally on TV) by scientists and medical experts. I note that you have your analysis but since you aren’t a scientist nor a medical expert (nor do you have tertiary education in any of the relevant areas) and since your view wasn’t presented by either Prof Henneberg nor by Prof Thomas, I won’t bother going into a debate with you on your own opinions. Nor will I engage in any comments Mr Keogh gave you – I am only interested in his statements to the Police (the Statutory Declaration taken several days after Ms Cheney’s death) and the statements made during the trials. You do not appear to refer to any official documentation or statements (or email based communication). I am not interested in hearsay. If you wish to communicate with me further (or are submitting comments for general readers) then please refer to the medical affidavits, or court decisions, or the 2009 Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal decision, or Keogh’s 1994 Statutory Declaration, or the Trial Transcript, or the words used in the media by any of the experts who commented on this case (so that the reader can check with the original source).

2. In addition to being a physicist, I am also Adelaide’s leading expert in the cortical mechanisms of human visual perception and pattern recognition and am thus scientifically qualified to make my own independent scientific based analysis in this regard concerning the photographic analysis by a human. I also have a background in computer based image processing algorithms and am thus well aware of the various image resolution enhancement algorithms (such as the super-resolution algorithms) that can be applied to enhance the resolution of digital images, such as what was done in 2004 to some sections of the police photographs. I am also aware of the possible artefacts that can be introduced by such algorithms and how the human visual perceptual system can be misled by these artefacts. I also understand that facial make-up applied to the face will change the reflectance of the skin and hide the signs of lividity. Thus, I do not believe that the facial swelling was totally removed by the hand action affecting the distribution of the swelling as implied in the Today Tonight program). My scientific opinion is that the applied make-up during the brief time interval between the taking of the two photographs changed the skin reflectance and thus suppressed the relevant features from being perceptually visible in the resolution enhanced images.

Diffusion and gravity would have redistributed the fluid during the time period between the time of death and the time of the autopsy and hence why the swelling of the face wouldn’t have been visible to Dr Manock when he started the autopsy procedure.

3. It is very interesting to me that in 2004, Prof Vernon-Roberts didn’t see a sign of anaphylaxis in the photographs he was looking at.

The following is one of 16 questions that the State Government submitted to Prof Vernon-Roberts in late 2004 (see 19 December 2014 – R v KEOGH (No 3) [2014] SASCFC 137 – the report of Professor Barrie Vernon-Roberts is admitted into evidence

at http://netk.net.au/KeoghHome.asp

“Is there any evidence of swelling or oedema on any of the post mortem photographs studied by you. In particular is there sufficient evidence of any swelling to suggest a cause of death from a cardiac condition or anaphylaxis?”

This was his reply to the above question:

“I have not identified definite external features suggesting death from anaphylaxis or a cardiac cause during my examination of post-mortem photographs of Ms Cheney.”

4. I understand that it takes some 30-60 minutes for lividity to set in and to start showing. Thus the death most probably occurred closer to the time Ms Cheney first entered the water rather than close to the time she was pulled out of the bathtub.

5. My analysis (based on my considerable experimental work) suggests to me that there is at least 130 degree difference between the head tilt to the left and Mr Keogh’s statement. It is not anatomically possible in such a narrow bathtub (with the maximum level of water depth at the plug end of around 16 – 17 cm; as was determined by my own geometrical analysis of the original bathtub photo) for the head to be slumped forwards and towards one side (left) such that the mouth and the nose are minimally submerged whilst the body is slumped significantly in the opposite direction.

The following statements by Keogh are totally inconsistent with the head being slumped by any amount to the left (or even facing upwards):

From page 278 First Trial Transcript:

“Anna was positioned on her right side facing north at the eastern end of the bath adjacent to the bathroom sink cabinet. I first noticed that her face was completely below water in the bath………. I cannot remember what position her legs were in. I just recall she was on her side looking in the direction of the front door”

From page 847 First Trial:

“she was in the bath and just about her whole face was under the water……… she was basically lying on her right side, and – three quarters to four fifths on her right side. Her left shoulder was back against the side of the bath. And her head would have been sort of falling down that way to the right”

6. Robert, having read your many comments on this case so far (on Prof Henneberg’s opinion on the lividity, and your opinion on what caused the swelling) it is my professional scientific opinion that you are trying to twist the reality of the evidence to somehow try to convince the readers of this blog that Keogh’s version of events can be made to fit the forensic evidence!

The slump of the face to the right as clearly stated by Keogh in several statements cannot be made to be a face looking up let alone a face that is slumped to the left!

7. I am not interested in further interaction with you unless you demonstrate a sign of being objective about this case. Given the extent of your involvement on behalf of one side over the past 20 years I just don’t think you can change your approach.

1. For the last time: I am not interested in hearsay but am interested in official and documented statements/opinions by the medical experts, including that of Dr Gillis.

2. I do not expect any of the medical experts to be able to tell you why the swelling doesn’t show in the second photo that was taken a short time after the first photo. I gave you my scientific opinion that the swelling hadn’t changed much between the two photos but that its features were made perceptually invisible in the second photo because facial make-up was applied. The make-up affected the reflectance of the skin and also masked some finer facial features. The net effect was to make the swelling perceptually invisible in the second photo.

3. Please discontinue the subject. The memory of Ms Anna-Jane Cheney (the beautiful young lawyer of high integrity, of high ethical standard and intelligence) will best be served if you were to totally disassociate yourself from her name. Pull down the facebook page too.

Police officer Yelland contacted Dr Manock who is checking that full screening for poisons and drugs are made regarding the blood of Ms Cheney. Manock stated that chloroform will show up in blood. He is inquiring of the toxicologist with regard to the possible testing. He will advise of results.”

“23 June 1994 – Toxicology Report by Felgate

Sen Forensic Scientist. No common drugs were found in blood or liver. Chloroform was not detected in the blood.”

—————————————————————-

2. Matter concerning Dr Dr David Gillis in 1999:

“7 October 1999 – Henry Keogh to Professor Roberts CEO IMVS

A leading histopathologist has recommended we obtain the expert opinion of David Gilles regarding Anna Cheney’s medical records to be made available by the DPP. Dr Gilles has consented to this request.”

“12 October 1999 Professor Roberts IMVS to Henry Keogh

I am advised that contrary to your statement in the letter of 7 October Dr Gilles has not consented to provide professional assistance.”
—————————————————————-

3. Thus, Dr Gillis hadn’t provided any assistance to Keogh’s case in 1999. If this is the same Dr Gillis who submitted the 2004 report to the then Solicitor General then it can be concluded that there is no documented evidence of Dr Gillis privately discussing the death of Ms Cheney with anyone from Keogh’s team (lawyers or the private investigator) although he may have been approached by Keogh’s representative but refused to discuss the matter, as suggested by the above communication. Thus, the available documented evidence doesn’t support the comment of June 20, 2016 at 2:05 pm by a private investigator who was involved in the case since 1997.

4. There is no evidence in the toxicology reports of any drugs tested. Since Hismanal wasn’t found at the home of the deceased by the investigating detectives nor was there any evidence that Ms Cheney used the medication, it can be concluded that it is highly unlikely that Hismanal had anything to do with the facial swelling (or any other swelling) and the death of Ms Cheney.

5. I will re-iterate what I stated earlier:

‘It is not possible to deduce from a photograph of the face whether the swelling was induced chemically (via a reaction to a drug or some other substance) or whether it was induced by an increase in capillary hydrostatic pressure, or whether it is related to a cardiac failure!”

It doesn’t matter whether certain features in the photo of the deceased’s swollen face (or any other part of the body) in this case looks similar to the features of another case where it was established via autopsy that that person did have an anaphylactic reaction.

So as the story is accurate about my contact and discussions with Dr Gillis I will set out the series of events.
When I first became involved in considering the circumstances around Anna Cheney’s death and had come by the photographs that had been provided the Court, it was apparent to me that Anna’s face was swollen and in one photograph she did not look swollen.
I sought advice to understand if swelling of the face could result from a person drowning as the pathologist had claimed.
To assist in this I telephoned the IMVS and was connected to a person called Vernon -Roberts.
At that time I did not know that he was the director of the IMVS.
I advised Vernon – Roberts that I had concerns about the death of Anna Cheney.
Vernon – Roberts told me I had no place in pursuing concerns over the death of Anna Cheney and was not particularly nice in how he expressed this (in his cultured voice) and made it abundantly clear that he would not assist me.
I then learnt that their was an immunology department attached to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and made enquiry at the Hospital.
I was told that the head of the department was a Dr David Gillis and given directions to the laboratories.
From there I had numerous meetings with Dr Gillis during which he viewed the photographs and gave me opinion.
Dr Gillis also advised me of “tryptase” testing and provided me details of where these tests could be conducted in Australia and the people to contact.
I reported these details to Henry Keogh.
Henry Keogh of his own initiative wrote to Vernon-Roberts.
I suspect that this is the reason Dr Gillis suddenly stopped being of assistance, as he emotionally expressed to me over the telephone that he feared for his job and his professional standing.
I consider that Dr Gillis is a decent man, who well knew the general attitude held towards anybody that questioned the Court judgement of Henry Keogh being the murderer of Anna Cheney.
Having lived through what the system dished out at me, I made no further personal approach to Dr Gillis until 2014: but I did ask other medical and legal people if they could speak to him along the way.
Dr David Gillis goes on the short list of decent people that I have met in the journey of looking into the true reason for Anna Cheney’s death.

Just as an example of the determined effort the South Australian Police made to not allow the release of the Police Running sheets is a very concerning story in itself. If they had nothing to be concerned about why go to all that trouble. Also why redact by blacking out large sections of the report. They did not do a particularly good job of this and a lot of it was able to be interpreted.

One of the physicists (a former work colleague) who participated in my bathtub experiment in May 2014 sent me this text this evening (my reply is at the bottom)

“Hi Peter, no doubt you are bedding down with a nice red in hand to watch “Sunday” program next on Keogh and all your work!!”

Here is my reply:

Hi xxxxx,

I did not watch the program but did see a preview couple of days ago and did read an article by Graham Archer.

By some strange coincidence I ran into Dr Bob Moles today at 3pm in Blackwood Coles and told him what I thought about his view (we first met three and a half years ago in his place for a discussion; he gave me the CD containing both of the trial transcripts).

It is my scientific opinion (and hence the prosecution case) that Ms Cheney was murdered but not in the manner that was proposed 20 years ago. All the forensic pathologists stuffed up. Mr Archer claims that it was Dr Manock who fell ill. My opinion is that it was a former police officer who at the time of Ms Cheney’s death was attached to the Coroner’s office. She examined the body on the night of death (at the home of the deceased) and also saw the body in the mortuary a few days later (she was the only original witness to appear in the court during the appeal in 2014). Without her evidence the crown could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bruises on the lower legs of the deceased were caused at the time of death. I actually sent an email in mid-2014 to the DPP that this person’s evidence was crucial!!

I am preparing an on-line comment to say that I am prepared to support the Cheney family (morally, financially and scientifically) in any civil court action they might consider taking against Mr Keogh for the murder of Ms Cheney.

The key to solving this case is the recognition of which part of the bathtub can be matched to the bruises on the right shin. The rest then falls in place. That is why the prosecution first needed to prove that the right shin bruises were very fresh rather than being caused earlier in the day before Ms Cheney went to work. The shin gets bruised very easily because the bone is very close to the skin. These bruises weren’t sufficiently developed at the time the body was examined on the night of death and were thought to be an old shaving scar. Had the shin been bruised earlier in the day the bruises would have been well developed by 10:30 pm. The bruises couldn’t have been caused by the removal of the body from the bathtub because it doesn’t match the asymmetry in the repeated pattern.

A very simple solution that couldn’t have been obtained without a careful study of the bathtub itself. This is where all the pathologists failed and thus ended taking educated guesses.

I am very confident in my scientific conclusion that Dr Colin Manock was correct in his claim that it was the assailant’s left hand that caused the three bruises on the deceased’s lateral lower left leg. However, unlike the approach that was undertaken by Dr Manock, I conducted a geometrical analysis of the bruises with respect to the bathtub. I started off with the analysis of the 7 bruises on the deceased’s right shin, followed by the bruises on top of the head and then the two oval shaped bruises on the back of the deceased’s neck.

Any forensic scientist who repeats my geometrical analysis ought to be able to conclude that Dr Manock made an error with respect to the following two significant factors:

(i) the mechanism of forced drowning;

(ii) the cause of the bruises in the following three locations: (a) top of the head; (b) back of the neck; (c) the right shin.

But, it is my scientific opinion that Dr Manock did not make an error on the following two critical factors:

(i) that the death was as a result of forced drowning;

and

(ii) that the 3 bruises on the lateral aspect of the deceased’s lower left leg were caused by the middle three fingers of the assailant’s left hand.

Thus, it is my well founded scientific opinion that whilst Dr Manock was incorrect on the actual mechanism of forced drowning he was correct in stating that:

(i) the death was caused by forced drowning;

and

(ii) that the assailant’s left hand caused the bruises on the deceased’s lower left leg.

I will discuss the details of my scientific analysis in the near future.

In more recent time I have come to realise something that may lead to more understanding of what occurred in the bathroom at 13 Homes Avenue on the night of Anna’s death.
It had always been apparent to me from what is evident in photographs taken by the police at the scene of death, that Anna’s right eye was displaced from its normal position.

Because of my concern over apparent interference of the photographs taken at the scene of death, my consideration until recently had been that for some (unfathomable reason) the image of the eyes had also been altered.
I now believe that was a mistake on my part with a number of the photographs.

There is otherwise, very plausible reason why the right eye is showing as displaced.

I believe, that as this circumstance was not reported by the forensic pathologist Dr Manock at autopsy, it raises very grave concern.

For the right eye to be displaced in the manner it shows in the photographs, it would require considerable trauma to the right side of the head and particularly the cheek (bone).
There also appears to be bruise of the right forehead approximately at the hairline and along the right side of the face.

Dr Manock though: did not report any bruise of the face.
He has said thought, that he reflected the skin of the face at autopsy to be certain there was no bruising there.
There has to be serious doubt, about this claim by Dr Manock.

Dr Manock originally raised the alarm of ‘foul play’, by stating to the CIB at Holden Hill through police officers attached to the Coroner’s office, that he had discovered a bruise at the top of the head when he reflected the scalp.

A black and white photograph that shows the scalp reflected forward was never admitted as an exhibit at the Committal or either trial of Henry Keogh.
The photograph shows that the scalp was only reflected a little more forward than the hairline: which places the bruising evident in the scalp at approximately the hairline when the scalp is folded back to the scull.

There were no photographs of the face taken at autopsy: which should have been standard procedure, and in colour, particularly with the claims Dr Manock was making.

Dr Manock proposed that Anna had been deliberately drowned by her left leg being gripped from underneath the right leg and then both legs folded over the body to hold Anna on her back below the surface of the bath water.

Any bruise at the front of the head would not have supported Dr Manock’s scenario.

Fracture of the cheek bone and displacement of the eye, with bruising along the side of the face would have been much more suggestive that Anna had some event which caused her to collapse or possibly slip in the bath whilst standing or attempting to standup: with the result that she fell and impacted — possibly the vanity unit at the side of the end of the bath: and highly likely the rim of the bath.

In a post on face book Anna -memory I have included an image from (Pocket Dentistry — Fastest Clinical Dentistry Insight Engine: Chapter 16 — Fractures of the zygomatic complex and arch): that shows almost identically the displacement of the right eye evident in the police photographs taken at the scene of death.

Anna’s right eye is displaced downwards 12.5 degrees as is the eye in the provided diagram.
There appears to be a pattern with some bruising evident on Anna’s cheek to the general pattern of the displaced zygoma as demonstrated in the diagram provided.

If you should be interested to consider the situation described further please contact me
at [email protected].

A very untidy case. The main reason is that very quickly the police nominate and focus on a suspect. A hunch. From there it is chaos.

Cheney was a lawyer. I think she would have signed her own insurance policies. If she didn’t and Keogh did then forgery may have taken place. Which suggests Keogh acted for reasons of his own financial benefit/gain.

I believe there is a real and strong possibility that a murder has taken place and suspicion fell heavily on the ‘scumbag’ Keogh. Keogh’s story seemed to jump about and contradict itself thus so as to speak tightening the noose around his own neck.

In trying to remain circumspect I have to step back from forming the opinion that Keogh is guilty. If he is innocent then there have to be other scenarios.

Did the dog actually physically disappear, like never to be seen again or has the dog just disappeared from the story. If the dog has vanished that could support the following.

I seem to recollect that Cheney as a lawyer was involved in actions against other lawyers. Is it possible that someone else murdered Anna-Jane Cheney and that Keogh the ‘scumbag’ returns home to a murder scene. From there Keogh’s life becomes a nightmare.

Is it possible that the dog was one of those noisy pests that had to be silenced. And was.

Moles’ involvement in the case is rather unfortunate in that he fought to have Keogh’s case overturned on a technicality

When I mentioned to Moles other wrongful convictions he turned against me. I am of the opinion that Moles is trying to selectively support only chosen people. He should be trying to reform the whole system. Criminal Cases Review Commission may help people who are wrongly gaoled. We have to have a system where the innocent does not go to gaol. Moles thinks it is only 1%. I think it is higher.

It is the whole justice system that has to be completely overhauled from the police, detectives, prosecution, defence, expert witnesses, judge and jury.

Was it murder?
Was it Keogh?
Was it another party?
Was Cheney silenced?
Who killed the dog? (If it did disappear)